1 2025:CGHC:26592-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1838 of 2021 1 - Union Of India General Manager South East Central Railway New G M Building, Bilaspur District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Principal Chief Personnel Officer, Divisional Office, South East Central Railway Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Senior Divisional Personnel Officer Personnel Department, Divisional Office, South East Central Railway, Kingsway Nagpur (M H), District : Nagpur, Maharashtra ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Anvarkhan Mohd Yar Khan, S/o Yar Khan, Aged About 60 Years Ex-Loco Pilot / T M R R/o Nehru, Ward, Po- Dewhadi, Tehsil - Tumsar, District - Bhandara (M H), District : Bhandara, Maharashtra ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. Ramakant Mishra, Dy. Solicitor General For Respondent : Mr. A. V. Shridhar, Advocate (Division Bench) (Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Order on Board Per; Rajani Dubey, Judge 23/06/2025 1. The respondent, while serving as Loco Pilot (Goods), Grade-II at Tumsar Station, was promoted and directed to join as Loco Pilot (Passenger) at Nainpur vide order dated 03.02.2003. Upon failing to comply, he was debarred for one year and later joined at Motibagh on Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 04.03.2004. Subsequently, on his representation claiming pay disparity with juniors, his pay was stepped up w.e.f. 01.01.2006 under 6th CPC and later under 7th CPC. However, upon review in light of Estt. Rule No. 91/2014, the stepping up was found irregular due to merger of relevant posts into a single pay band with Grade Pay 4200/-. A show ₹ cause notice dated 27.12.2019 was issued for recovery of 2,23,934/- ₹ from settlement dues. The respondent challenged the notice before the Tribunal, which, by interim order dated 21.01.2020 (Annexure P/1), stayed the recovery and directed that settlement dues be paid as per rules. The present writ petition has been filed against the said interim order seeking following reliefs :- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records of the Original Application NO-203/86/2020 10.2 That, Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari and quash the order dated 21/1/2020 passed in Original Application NO-203/86/2020. (Annexure P/1) 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to stay the operation and effect of order dated 21/1/2020, till the pendency of the instant petition. 10.4 Any other relief as this Hon'ble Court may deems fit may also be awarded” 2. The brief facts leading to the present petition are that the respondent was serving as a Loco Pilot (Goods), Grade-II in the pay scale of 5000–8000 at Tumsar Station under the administrative control of the ₹ petitioners. Upon being duly empanelled for promotion to the post of Loco Pilot (Passenger), the competent authority issued an order dated 03.02.2003 directing the respondent to report for duty at Nainpur Station in the promoted capacity. However, the respondent failed to 3 comply with the said posting and did not join at Nainpur Station as directed. As a consequence of his non-compliance with the promotion- cum-posting order, the respondent was debarred from further promotional consideration for a period of one year. Subsequently, the respondent joined as Loco Pilot (Passenger) at Motibagh Station on 04.03.2004, thereby assuming a higher post after the completion of the period of debarment. Thereafter, the respondent represented to the authorities that several junior employees within the same cadre were drawing a higher rate of pay than him, and he requested that his pay be stepped up to match that of his juniors. Accepting his representation, the authorities granted the benefit of stepping up of pay w.e.f. 01.01.2006 in accordance with the provisions of the 6th Central Pay Commission, and the revised pay continued under the 7th CPC as well. However, upon administrative scrutiny and in light of the clarification issued in Establishment Rule No. 91/2014, it was found that the stepping up of pay granted to the respondent was not in consonance with the applicable rules. The said clarification categorically stated that the posts of Goods Driver, Senior Goods Driver, and Senior Passenger Driver had been merged into a single pay band carrying Grade Pay of 4200/-, and thus, the pay of the ₹ respondent could not have been stepped up vis-à-vis his juniors in the merged cadre. In view of this irregularity, the authorities undertook a review of the pay fixation of respondent and issued a detailed show cause notice dated 27.12.2019, proposing rectification and re-fixation of his pay for the period from 01.01.2006 to 31.10.2019. The notice also intimated the respondent regarding the excess payment of ₹2,23,934/- on account of the erroneous stepping up of pay, and further 4 proposed recovery of the said amount from the settlement dues of respondent. Instead of submitting a reply to the said show cause notice, the respondent directly approached the Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal by filing Original Application No. O.A./203/86/2020, challenging the issuance of the notice. The Hon’ble Tribunal, vide interim order dated 21.01.2020, stayed the recovery proceedings and issued directions to the effect that no recovery of the amount of 2,23,934/- shall be effected from the settlement dues of the ₹ respondent pursuant to the impugned notice dated 27.12.2019. The Tribunal further directed that payment of settlement dues be processed strictly in accordance with applicable rules, and the pendency of the Original Application should not operate as a bar to the same. Aggrieved by the said interim order passed by the Hon’ble Tribunal, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition challenging the legality, propriety, and correctness of the said order. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Tribunal has committed grave error in law and facts in allowing the interim application filed by the respondent. The Tribunal failed to appreciate that the impugned show cause notice dated 27.12.2019 was issued merely as a preliminary step to afford the respondent an opportunity of hearing before his retirement on 31.01.2020, and no recovery had been effected at that stage. The proposed recovery amount of Rs. 2,23,934/- was merely kept in a suspense account and has not yet been credited to the railway revenue, rendering the order of Tribunal premature and unwarranted. Moreover, the Tribunal has wrongly relied upon the judgment in Rafiq Masiha’s case, which is inapplicable in the 5 present case of a mere show cause notice. It is further submitted that by directing the release of the entire retirement dues, including the overpaid amount due to erroneous pay fixation, the Tribunal has virtually granted final relief at the interim stage, which is legally impermissible. As per the Office Memorandum of DoPT dated 06.02.2014, excess payments, being public funds, must be recovered unless exceptional hardship is demonstrated, which the respondent has neither pleaded nor proved. The Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, particularly Rule 15, expressly empower the Head of Office to recover government or railway dues from retirement benefits. The respondent had earlier given an unconditional undertaking to refund any excess amount, which binds him in equity and law. Furthermore, binding precedents of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chandi Prasad Uniyal and Jagdey Singh unequivocally allow recovery of excess payments in such circumstances. The failure to consider these authoritative rulings by the learned Tribunal, and the absence of any claim of hardship or undue delay from the respondent, has resulted in a miscarriage of justice, warranting interference by this Hon’ble Court. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the contentions raised by the petitioners are wholly misconceived and untenable, particularly in view of the fact that the original application is still pending adjudication before the learned Tribunal. The interim relief granted does not amount to a final determination of the matter but merely ensures that the respondent is not subjected to undue financial hardship due to recovery initiated without conclusion of due process. 6 The show cause notice dated 27.12.2019, though not followed by immediate recovery, formed the basis of withholding legitimate retirement dues of the respondent, including gratuity and other terminal benefits, in violation of the principles of natural justice. The learned Tribunal rightly considered the balance of convenience and irreparable loss that would be caused to the respondent in the absence of interim relief. Until such issues are adjudicated finally, any attempt to recover or withhold dues amounts to pre-judging the dispute. The reliance placed by the petitioners on judgments such as Chandi Prasad Uniyal and Jagdey Singh is misplaced at the interim stage, as those cases pertain to finalized determinations of overpayment, unlike the present case where legality of the pay fixation and corresponding recovery is still under consideration. Moreover, the application of DoPT guidelines and Railway Pension Rules must be subject to proper interpretation by the Tribunal in light of the facts of each case. Therefore, the interim relief granted by the learned Tribunal is appropriate and necessary to preserve the rights of the respondent during pendency of the original application and does not amount to granting final relief. The petitioners’ challenge to such an interim measure is premature and should be rejected. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents enclosed along with this petition. 6. After carefully considering the submissions and perusing the records, this Court observes that the controversy primarily revolves around the correctness of the pay fixation, the entitlement to stepping up of pay, and the resultant recovery of excess payments. These are substantial questions of fact and law that require a 7 detailed and considered examination on merits by the Tribunal. The interim order passed by the Tribunal operates as a temporary measure to maintain the status quo and prevent irreparable prejudice to the respondent, who faces a direct impact on his retirement benefits pending final adjudication. This Court is mindful that the grant of interim relief in such cases does not constitute a final determination of rights but safeguards the interest of parties during the pendency of litigation. 7. Given that the original application is still pending and the parties have adequate opportunity to place all relevant facts and legal arguments before the Tribunal for final disposal, it would be inappropriate for this Court to interfere with the interim order at this stage. 8. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case or the correctness of the impugned show cause notice and proposed recovery, this writ petition is disposed of with liberty to both the parties to challenge the final order passed by the learned Tribunal, if aggrieved. Sd/- Sd/- (Rajni Dubey) (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Judge Shayna