IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.19754 of 2010 ====================================================== 1. Union of India through the General Manager, East Central Railway, Hazipur, Vaishali 2. The Divisional Railway Manager, Danapur Division East Central Railway (Hazipur), Vaishali 3. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, Danapur Division Division East Central Railway, Danapur, Khagaul 4. Assistant Personnel Officer, Danapur Division, East Central Railway, Danapur, Khagaul 5. Assistant Engineer, Headquarters, Danapur Division, East Central Railway, Danapur, Khagaul .... .... Petitioner/s Versus Ram Babu Prasad Son of late Bal Kishun, Resident of Village- Sarai, P.O. Khagaul, P.S. Shahpur, District Patna .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bindhyachal Singh, Advocate Mr Prashnat Sinha, Advocate Mr Ram Binod Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Gautam Saha, Advocate ====================================================== 3 30-09-2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondent. The petitioners are aggrieved by judgment and order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna dated 3.8.2009 passed in O.A. No.317 of 2006 whereby the Tribunal has interfered with speaking order of the Railway dated 3.3.2006 passed in compliance of judgment in an earlier O.A. preferred by the respondent bearing OA No.212 of 2004. The simple issue was whether the reason given by the Patna High Court CWJC No.19754 of 2010 (3) dt.30-09-2011 2 Railway authorities for correcting the pay of the respondent at the time of retirement from Rs.7100 to Rs.6900 was correct or not. Instead the Tribunal has fallen into the error of holding that no such correction is permissible because the respondent had retired from service. We are unable to agree with the aforesaid view of the Tribunal in the light of several judgments of the Apex Court and a Full Bench decision of this Court reported in 2007 (3) PLJR 398 (Ram Binod Singh v. the Bihar State Electricity Board & ors.). Learned counsel for the respondent has made an attempt to distinguish this case on facts by referring to a letter dated 18.9.1996 (Annexure- B to the counter affidavit). That letter shows that an option was exercised by the respondent as to from what date his annual increment should be reckoned. This was on account of promotion granted in the year 1996 vide Annexure- A dated 11.9.1996. On the other hand, reasoned order contained in Annexure- I to the counter affidavit discloses that prior to retirement of the respondent on 31.7.2003, his pay in the post of Chief Typist in the pay scale of Rs.5500- 9000 was refixed in terms of recommendation of 5th Pay Commission and on account of an error the replacement pay was shown to be Rs.5900 in place of Rs.5750. This affected the future increment and pay fixation on Patna High Court CWJC No.19754 of 2010 (3) dt.30-09-2011 3 promotion to the grade of O.S. I (Typist) in scale of Rs.6500 - 10500. The mistake was detected by the Accounts Branch in course of service verification at the time of retirement. In our view, the error in an incorrect refixation at the time of considering replacement scale on the basis of Pay Commission recommendation has to be corrected by the authorities whenever such mistake comes to their notice. The principles governing this correction are fully discussed in the Full Bench judgment of this Court referred earlier. The only other issue which could have arisen was whether the authorities should be permitted to recover excess payment made or not. In this regard, no further decision is required because the reasoned order mentions that in view of order of the Tribunal, the recovered amount of Rs.20615/- has been refunded to the applicant/ respondent herein. But the authorities have rightly decided that refixation of his pay and pension on correct basis and as per rules, was required to be done. As a result of aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is allowed.The impugned order of the Tribunal is set aside. The pension of the respondent must be fixed on the basis of pay to which he was legally entitled after correcting the mistake that had taken place earlier. It is made clear that we are not interfering with the Patna High Court CWJC No.19754 of 2010 (3) dt.30-09-2011 4 direction of the Tribunal that the authorities should consider respondent’s request for payment of composite transfer grant in accordance with law. sk (Shiva Kirti Singh, J) (Shivaji Pandey, J)