UNION OF INDIA AND ORS vs SH HEERA LAL KUNDRA RETD CTI

Judgment text excerpt

$~79 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 535/2025 & CM APPL. 2465/2025, CM APPL. 2466/2025 UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Sushil Kumar Pandey, SPC with Mr. Hemant Kumar Mishra, Adv. versus SH HEERA LAL KUNDRA RETD CTI .....Respondent Through: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL JUDGMENT (ORAL) % 16.01.2025 C. HARI SHANKAR, J. 1. The respondent superannuated as Chief Ticket Inspector in the office of the Railways on 31 August 2016. He would ordinarily have been held entitled to pension by fixation of his basic pay on the date of his retirement as ₹ 66,000/- per month. However, on the ground that there had been an erroneous excess payment made to the respondent ten years prior thereto, the basic pay of the respondent was, on the date of his retirement, fixed as ₹ 64,100/- for the purposes of computation of his retiral dues. 2. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent approached the Central Signature Not Verified WP (C) 535/2025 Page 1 of 6 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:18.01.2025 20:37:38 Administrative Tribunal1 by way of OA 4202/2018, challenging both the refixation of his pay as well as the recoveries that were being effected from his pensionary benefits. 3. The Tribunal has, however, by the judgment under challenge, rendered on 4 April 2024, only dealt with the aspect of recovery. The Tribunal has held that, in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in para 18 of the decision in State of Punjab v Rafiq Masih2, the recovery from the respondent was unjustified. 4. We have heard Mr. Pandey, learned Counsel for the petitioners, at length. 5. Apropos the judgment of the Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih, Mr. Pandey has sought to place reliance on a decision of a Division Bench of this C