HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 15509 of 2025 Chief Justice's Court HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J. 1. This petition is directed against order dated 10.09.2025 passed in Original Application ('OA') No. 378 of 2025 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad, whereby while admitting the OA, the prayer for interim relief has been rejected by the Tribunal. 2. The OA was filed with a plea that the recovery sought to be made from the pension of the petitioner was not justified. The Tribunal, by order impugned, though admitted the OA, came to the conclusion that in view of judgments in Vishwanath Singh Vs. Union of India and others : OA No. 641 of 2024, decided on 19.03.2025 and Subhash Chandra Singh Vs. Union of India and others : OA No. 752 of 2024, decided on 02.05.2025, the recovery was justified and consequently, dismissed the prayer for grant of interim relief. 3. Counsel for the petitioner made submissions that the Tribunal was not justified in rejecting the prayer for interim relief inasmuch as the action was initiated by the respondents, i.e., the Railways as well as the Bank without providing any opportunity of hearing and that for the mistake by the respondents, the amount could not have been recovered. Further submissions have been made that once the OA has been admitted, rejection of the prayer for interim relief cannot be countenanced. 4. Counsel appearing for Railways as well as Bank supported the order Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Amardeo Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.S.G.I., Jainendra Kumar Mishra, Shiv Kumar Pal Chhote Lal .....Petitioner(s) Union of India and 3 others .....Respondent(s) impugned with the submissions that at the time of opening of the account for pension, a specific undertaking was given that without any notice, the amount can be recovered from the pension amount, in case, any excess payment has been made and therefore, the rejection of the prayer for interim relief is justified. 5. We have considered the submissions made and have perused the material available on record. 6. From the material, which has been produced, it appears that the determination of the amount paid in excess has been made unilaterally by the respondents and the petitioner apparently has not been provided any opportunity of hearing. 7. Besides the above, once the petition has been admitted, the same reflects prima facie case in favour of the petitioner and thereafter refusing grant of interim relief, whereby the one-third pension of the petitioner is sought to be deducted by the Bank during the pendency of the OA, which definitely is causing irreparable injury and balance of convenience also is in favour of the petitioner, the non-grant of prayer for interim relief does not appear to be justified. 8. Consequently, the petition is allowed. 9. The order dated 10.09.2025 passed by the Tribunal, to the extent of rejecting the prayer for interim relief, is set aside and it is ordered that during the pendency of the OA, further recovery against the petitioner shall remain stayed. 10. Looking to the nature of case and the fact that the Tribunal had considered the entire matter on merits while passing the order dated 10.09.2025, it is expected of the Tribunal to hear and finally decide the OA out of turn/with expedition. October 15, 2025 Mukesh Pal/Sazia WRIA No. 15509 of 2025 2 (Kshitij Shailendra,J.) (Arun Bhansali,CJ.) Digitally signed by :- MUKESH PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad