1 ORDER SHEET WBCHCA0491822026 Item No.5 Ct. No. 1 KS IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE WP.CT 219 of 2026 Union of India & Ors. Versus Bibhas Das Appearance: Mr. Moti Sagar Tiwari Mr. Atanu Basu …..Advocate for Petitioners/U.O.I. CORAM: RAVINDRA VITHALRAO GHUGE, CHIEF JUSTICE & OM NARAYAN RAI J. Date: 28.09.2026 Order (Per Court) 1. The Petitioner is the South Eastern Railway. By the order dated 17.07.2026, passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Kolkata Bench, Kolkata, O.A. No. 627 of 2026 filed by the Original Applicant/Employee, has been allowed and the order of recovery of excess amount paid, is quashed and set aside. 2 2. We have considered the contentious submissions of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners. With his assistance, we have gone through the petition paper book. Insofar as recovery of excess amount paid is concerned, we find that this an open and shut case. 3. The undisputed factors are summarised as under :- (a) The Original Applicant was appointed as a Junior Clerk on 13.12.1996, in the Central Railway at Mumbai. (b) On 27.04.1999, he was promoted as a Senior Clerk. (c) The Circular dated 20.08.1999, issued by the Ministry of Railways (Rail Mantralaya), Government of India, indicates that if an employee working on a particular post, seeks request transfer in another State or in another Zone, before completing 2 years on the promotional post, his last drawn salary would not be protected. In short, until he completes two years on the promotional post, his salary on the Promotional Post would not be protected on a request transfer, though he would be occupying a lower post. 3 (d) The Original Applicant was transferred on request by order dated 08.02.2001, retrospectively. He had not completed two years on the post of Senior Clerk. (e) Inadvertantly, he was paid the salary of a senior clerk. (f) The Original Applicant has retired on 31.07.2026. A notice dated 16.03.2026 was issued to him by the Employer seeking recovery of 50% of the excess amount paid. (g) The Original Applicant replied to the notice vide his communication dated 23.03.2026. (h) An order dated 26.03.2026 was issued by the Employer directing recovery of 50% of the excess salary paid. This order was impugned before the Tribunal. 4. By judgment dated 17.07.2026, the Tribunal relied upon the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), (2015) 4 SCC 334 and set aside the order of 50% recovery of the excess amount paid. 5. The law on recovery of excess amount, has now crystalized. In particular circumstances, recovery has be prohibited by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Syed Abdul Qadir vs. State of Bihar & Ors., 2009 (3) SCC 475 and 4 State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer). The law laid down in Chandi Prasad Uniyal Vs. State of Uttarakhand, AIR 2012 SC 2951 is considered while delivering the judgment in Rafiq Masih (White Washer) (supra) and Syed Abdul Qadir (supra). 6. The record reveals that the Original Applicant was not instrumental in playing any fraud when his pay fixation was done by the Employer on his request transfer to South Eastern Railway at Kolkata. There is no allegation of deceit or mischief on his part. It is simply an error committed by the Employer in not calculating his salary in terms of the Circular dated 20.08.1999. The notice of recovery was issued three months prior to the date of superannuation of the Applicant. He was at the threshold of the retirement. 7. In view of the above, we do not find that the Applicant was instrumental in the wrong fixation of his salary. The Tribunal has considered this aspect and has also taken into account that the Employer woke up after 25 years to cause a recovery. We, therefore, do not find that the Tribunal has committed any error. 5 8. Nevertheless, it is equally settled that an Employer is not prohibited from correcting an earlier mistake, prospectively. Merely because the Employer has committed a mistake earlier, does not mean that the mistake has got crystalized. The Employer can follow the due process of law if it desires to correct its mistake of wrong pay fixation, to be made operative prospectively. A reasonable opportunity of hearing to the Original Applicant in adherance to the principles of natural justice, while correcting the said mistake prospectively, is the expectation of law. The Tribunal has not created any embargo on such procedure. It has only set aside the order of 50% recovery. 9. Considering the above, this Petition is devoid of merit and is dismissed. (OM NARAYAN RAI, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE) Chief Justice