IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11860 of 2008 THE UNION OF INDIA & ANR Versus RAMA KANT SINHA ----------- For the Petitioners : Mr. Parashuram Singh, Advocate For the Respondents : None ----------- P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal ----------- Dated, the 18th August, 2008. Heard. 2. The contention of counsel for the petitioners is that as matter of fact the respondent (original applicant) was overpaid inasmuch although he remained absent from duty and without sanction of leave, he withdrew the pay for the absence period. 3. The Tribunal considered the matter, thus: - “2. That respondents have taken almost one and half years to file reply. The only thing that has been stated in para 5 of the written statement reads as under: - “That the Statement made in para 4.2 of the OA is not accepted. It is clarified that absence of duty and without sanction of leave, he drawn excess payment as a pay. Hence the statement is hereby denied. A photocopy of vetted leave is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-R/1.” 3. It is seen that Annexure-R/1 is the statement of payment of terminal benefits and not of payment.” 4. The learned counsel have been heard. It is clear from the perusal of the reply that it is not stated as to what is the period for which the applicant was absent from duty - 2 - and whether he had been proceeded against. The reply also does not indicate as to under what circumstances, the controlling officer made payment of salary to the applicant even when he was alleged absent. Rule 9 of the Railway Servants (Pension) Rules makes it clear that the charge sheet can be issued only in respect of the incident which is within four years of the issue of the charges. 5. It is also clear from Rule 15 of the Railway Servants (Pension) Rules that only the admitted dues can be adjusted. If the applicant is contesting the ground of absence, the same amount cannot be said to be admitted dues. As per the said rule, the admitted dues have to be worked out within three months from the date of superannuation. 6. In view of the above, it is clear that the railways have not been able to give justified ground for withholding the payment of DCRG amount to the applicant. They are, therefore, directed to release the amount of DCRG together with interest as prescribed under the Rule. This payment should be made within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the interest @ 9% shall be payable beyond that period. The amount on account of leave encashment should also be paid to the applicant along with interest @ 9%. 4. The consideration of the matter by the Tribunal cannot be said to suffer from any legal flaw. As a matter of fact there is serious dispute on the issue of absence. The contention of over- payment as contended by the counsel for the petitioners appears to be of no substance. 5. Writ petition is dismissed in limine. R. M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J Pawan/-