IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.19677 of 2010 1. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH GENERAL MANAGER, EASTERN RAILWAY, HAJIPUR. 2. THE DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER, EASTERN RAILWAY, SONEPUR (SARAN). 3. THE DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER (P), EASTERN RAILWAY, SONEPUR (SARAN) 4. THE DIVISIONAL FINANCIAL MANAGER, EASTERN RAILWAY, SONEPUR (SARAN) 5. THE POST MASTER, SONEPUR, DISTT- SARAN(CHAPRA)……….PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS IN ORIGINAL APPLICATION Versus BACHCHU MAHARAJ S/O LATE BINDA MAHARAJ, RETIRED DEPUTY YARD MASTER, N.E.RAILWAY, MUZAFFARPUR, R/O VILLAGE-KHARIKA, P.O. & P.S. SONEPUR, DISTT- SARAN(CHAPRA)…….RESPONDENT. ----------- For the petitioner:- Mr.Bindhyachal Singh, Adv. Mr. Vipin Kr. Singh, Adv. Mr. Sushil Kr. Singh, Adv. --------- 02/ 03-Dec-2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned judgment of learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna dated 1st October 2008 whereby O.A. No. 700/2005 preferred by sole respondent has been dismissed. 2. The Tribunal held that it was not open for the railway administration to hold that the applicant had drawn any excess payment beyond what he was legally entitled to. Hence, the Tribunal held that no recovery could have been effected either from DCRG or from other pensionary benefits of the applicant/respondent herein. 2 3. From the materials on record it is evident that there is no document to show that the sole respondent was ever communicated an adverse decision that his period of unauthorized absence was not regularized. Instead, the materials show that the authorities for years paid his salary etc. on the basis that period of absence had been regularized. The Tribunal has also considered the age of the respondent which is 80 years as one of the factors in support of the fact that such belated action of recovery is definitely against justice. In our view, equity is in favour of the respondent and in the facts of the case when there is no material to show that the respondent had ever misrepresented or had knowledge that any wrong payment was being made to him, Equity does not permit recovery at such a belated stage. 4. In the facts of the case, we find no good reasons to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. perwez (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)