IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1915 of 2010 1. The Union of India through the General Manager, East Central Railway, Hajipur. 2.The Divisional Railway Manager, East Central Railway, Samastipur. 3. The Divisional Railway Manager (P), East Central Railway, Samastipur 4. The Senior D.F.M., East Central Railway, Samastipur --- Respondents/Petitioners. Versus Raj Kishore Sah, son of late Satya Narayan resident of Village-Akhta, Police Station- Bargania, District-Sitamarhi ---- Applicant/Respondent. ---------- 4. 24.6.2010 Heard Mr. Bindhayachal Singh for the petitioners, and Mr. M.M.P. Sinha for the respondents. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 8.7.2009, passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, in O.A. No.897 of 2003 (Raj Kishore Sah Vrs. The Union of India & Ors.), whereby the original application preferred by the respondent herein has been allowed, the order dated 26.8.2002 (Annexure-6), passed by the authorities has been set aside, and the petitioners herein have been directed to fix the respondent’s post-retirement benefits on the footing that Rs.8,500/- was his last drawn salary. 2. A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of the writ petition may be 2 indicated. The respondent herein was appointed as an A/2 Signaler in the services of the Indian Railways on 21.10.1966, in the pay scale of Rs. 110-200. He was given promotion thereafter. By order dated 9.10.1992 (Annexure-2), his salary was fixed as Rs.8500/- on 1.8.1987. Shortly before his superannuation on 31.1.2001, he was visited with the order whereby his pay was reduced from Rs.8500/- to Rs.8300/- with effect from 1.8.1987, with the consequential direction of recovery of excess payment and fixation of post-retirement benefits accordingly. The respondent herein challenged the same by preferring O.A. No. 582 of 2002, before the learned Tribunal which was disposed of by order dated 24.7.2002 (Annexure-5), whereby the authorities were directed to dispose of the respondent’s representation in accordance with law and by a reasoned order. Consequently, the respondent’s representation has been considered and rejected by order dated 26.8.2002 (Annexure-6), whereby the authorities reiterated their earlier stand of reduction in pay from Rs.8500/- to Rs.8300/- with the consequential directions. The 3 respondent challenged the same by preferring the present O.A. No. 897 of 2003, whereby the said order dated 26.8.2002 (Annexure-6) has been set aside, and it has been directed that the petitioner’s salary fixed at Rs.8500/- shall remain with consequential benefits. Hence this writ petition at the instance of the Railways. 3. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. In substance it is a case of wrong fixation of salary while the respondent was in harness and is sought to be corrected after a lapse of eight years. It is evident to us on the basis of the materials placed before us that it was indeed a case of wrong fixation of salary way back on 9.10.1992, with retrospective date. In other words, the respondent was undoubtedly entitled to the salary of Rs.8300/- with effect from 1.8.1987, and so fixed by order dated 9.10.1992. We are of the view that the authorities ought to have issued a show-cause to the respondent before they took steps to reduce the salary. The authorities got the second opportunity to assign reasons after 4 the Tribunal remitted the matter to them to dispose of the respondent’s representation. It appears to us on a perusal of the order dated 26.8.2002, disposing of the respondent’s representation, that he does not assign any reason as to under what circumstances the respondent’s salary was erroneously fixed. It seeks to give the calculation only. To that extent, the authorities have faulted twice. The position nevertheless is that the respondent was entitled to salary of Rs.8300/-. 4. The matter with respect to recovery would not have needed such serious consideration, had the respondent continued in harness. It needs thoughtful consideration because the error was detected shortly before his superannuation when the authorities took the stock of the situation in an effort to determine his post-retirement benefits, undoubtedly an appropriate stage for the purpose. 5. The question of recovery is now covered by the authoritative pronouncement of a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Binod Singh Vrs. The Bihar State Electricity Board 5 and others, reported in 2007(3) P.L.J.R. 398. The judgment lays down that recovery of excess payment to an employee while in harness, or after superannuation, is the normal course. Recovery may not be permissible under certain circumstances. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, as observed hereinabove, the authorities faulted twice in declining to assign reasons for erroneous fixation of salary. Secondly, as emphasized hereinabove, the respondent was really entitled to Rs.8300/- per months, rather than Rs.8500/- per month. 6. Taking into account the overall situation and balancing the equities between the parties, we are of the view that the petitioners shall not recover the excess payment of salary to the respondent for the period he was in harness. However, his post- retirement benefits shall be fixed on the basis that he was really entitled to the salary of Rs.8300/- on the date of his superannuation, and the excess payment paid to him shall be recovered without the liability of payment of interest. 6 7. In the result, this writ petition is allowed in part. The order of the learned Tribunal accordingly stands modified. Vinay/ ( S. K. Katriar,J. ) (Birendra Prasad Verma, J.)