1 CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.12376 OF 2008 With CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE NO. 2815 OF 2006 --------- In the matter of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In C.W.J. C. No.12376 of 2008 R.N. Prasad son of late Chamaru Lal, Ex-Chief Controller II under Senior D.O.M. South Eastern Railway, Chakaradharpur, presently residing at House No. B-93, Ashokpuri, Khajpura, P.O. B.V. College, Patna, District- Patna (Bihar) --- Applicant --- Petitioner. Versus 1. The Union of India through General Manager South Eastern Railway, Calcutta-1. 2. Divisional Railway Manager, South Eastern Railway Chakradharpur. 3. Senior Divisional Personal Officer, South Eastern, Railway, Chakaradharpur 4. Senior Divisional Co-operative Manager South Eastern Railway, Chakardharpur 5. Senior Divisional Accounts Officer, South Eastern Railway, Chakradharpur ---- Respodnents --- Respondents. In CWJC No.2815 oF 2006 1. The Union of India, through General Manager, South Eastern Railway, Kolcutta. 2. The Divisional Railway Manager, South Eastern Railway, Chakardharpur, Jharkhand. 3.Sri Mahendra Kumar Prasad, S/O late Jawahar Lall, R/O Village- Officer Colony, P.S. Chakradharpur, Distt. Singhbhum, The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, South Eastern Railway, Chakradharpur. 4. Senior Divisional Co-operating Manager, South Eastern Railway, Chakradharpur. 5. Senior Divisional Accounts Officer, South Eastern Railway, Chakradharpur. ----- Petitioenrs. Versus 1. R.N. Prasad, S/O late Chamarulal, Ex-Chief Controller-II Under Senior D.O.M., South Eastern Railway, Chakradharpur, at present residing at House No.B-93, Ashokpuri, Khajpura, P.O. B.V. College, Patna, District-Patna (Bihar) 2. The Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Branch, Patna, through Registrar ------- Respondents. --------- 2 In C.W. J.C. No. 12376 of 2008 For the Petitioner : None For the Respondent : Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha. In C.W.J.C. No.2815 of 2006. For the Petitioners : Mr.Ashok Kumar Keshari. For The Respondent : None. P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.K.KATRIAR THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE K. MANDAL S.K. Katriar & Kishore K. Mandal,JJ. Both the writ petitions are directed against the order dated 20.7.2005, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, in O.A. No. 372 of 2004 (R.N. Prasad vs. Union of India & others). C.W.J.C. No. 12376 of 2008 is at the instance of the employee, and C.W.J.C. No. 2815 of 2006, is at the instance of the Railways. None appears for the employee in both the cases. Heard Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha for the Railway and its functionaries in C.W. J.C. No. 12376 of 2008, and Mr. Ashok Kumar Keshari for the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 2815 of 2006. 2. The employee had earlier preferred O.A. No. 935 of 2000, seeking the relief that he may be granted increment at par with one S. N. Mishra, and for the further relief that he should not be required to refund the allegedly excess payment made to him while in service. O.A. No. 935 of 2000 was disposed of by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, by order 3 dated 8.9.2003, whereby the authorities were directed to dispose of the grievances of the employee by a reasoned order. The same was rejected by order dated 7.2.2004, leading to the present O.A. No. 372 of 2004, which has been allowed in part by order dated 20.7.2005. The learned Tribunal has held that S.N. Mishra was given the increment in time, whereas the present employee lagged behind because a punishment had been inflicted on him. The learned Tribunal, therefore, concluded that this part of the claim can not be granted. The employee has, therefore, preferred C.W.J.C. No.12376 of 2008 against first part of the order whereby he has not been allowed parity with S.N. Mishra. 2.1. As to the second relief prayed for by the present employee, his pay was fixed at Rs.640/- which he continued to draw till superannuation on 1.6.2000, whereafter the authorities realized that his pay ought to have been fixed at Rs. 620/-. Therefore, a sum of Rs.39,970/- was recovered from his post-retirement benefits. The learned Tribunal has held that the excess payment was made to the employee for no fault like fraud, misrepresentation, or the like was attributable to him. The respondent authorities have, therefore, been directed to refund a sum of Rs.39,970/- with 4 interest. The Railways have filed the said C.W.J.C. No. 2815 of 2006, whereby they have been directed to refund a sum of Rs.39,970/-. 3. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It appears to us that the Tribunal has rightly held that the employee can not be granted increment at par with S.N. Mishra, because a punishment has been inflicted on the present employee. Therefore, this part of the order cannot be faulted. C.W.J.C. No.12376 of 2008 is hereby rejected. 4. In so far as C.W. J.C. No. 2815 of 2006 is concerned, we agree with the Tribunal that no fault/misrepresentation or the like, is attributable to the employee for excess payment. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly held that no recovery can be made and ought to be refunded in a situation where the employee superannuated way back in 2000. The learned Tribunal should have noticed the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court reported in 2007(3) P.L.J.R. 398, Ram Binod Singh Vrs. Bihar State Electricity Board and others. 5. We do not find any merit in the two writ petitions. Both the writ petitions are dismissed. It is made clear that the post- retirement 5 benefits of the employee shall be calculated on the basis of his actual entitlements. ( S. K. Katriar, J.) ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.) High Court Patna, Dated 3rd March, 2010, Vinay/ N.A.F.R.