IndiaversusAnil Kumar Sinha

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 19257 of 2025
     ======================================================
1.    The Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Railways,
     Government of India, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi- 110001.
2.   The General Manager, East Central Railway, Hajipur P.O.- Digghi Kalan,
     P.S.- Hajipur (Sadar), District- Vaishali, Pin Code- 844101 (Bihar).
3.   The General Manager (Personnel), East Central Railway, Hajipur P.O.-
     Digghi Kalan, P.S.-Hajipur (Sadar), Dist.-Vaishali, Pin -844101 (Bihar).
4.   The Divisional Railway Manager, East Central Railway, Danapur, District-
     Patna, Pin Code- 801105 (Bihar).
5.   The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, East Central Railway, Danapur,
     District- Patna, Pin Code 801105 (Bihar).
6.   The Senior Divisional Financial Manager, East Central Railway, Danapur,
     District- Patna, Pin Code 801105 (Bihar).
                                                                  ... ... Petitioner/s
                                         Versus

     Anil Kumar Sinha Son of Late Sheo Nandan Prasad, resident of Ram Nagar
     Bengali Tola, P.S.- Jakkanpur, District- Patna - 800001 (Bihar).

                                               ... ... Respondent/s
     ======================================================
     Appearance:
     For the Petitioner/s   :       Mr. Rajen Sahay, Advocate
     For the Respondent/s   :       Mr.
     ======================================================
     CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH
               and
               HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH
     ORAL JUDGMENT
     (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH)

      Date: 22-01-2026

              The present writ petition has been filed against the order

      dated 31.01.2025, passed by the Ld. Central Administrative

      Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Ld.
Patna High Court CWJC No.19257 of 2025 dt.22-01-2026
                                           2/30




         CAT’) in O.A. No. 050/00764/2023, whereby and whereunder

         while disposing off the original application filed by the

         respondent herein, the order of recovery dated 18.02.2022 along

         with the order dated 23.09.2021 read with the order dated

         30.11.2018 have been quashed and the petitioners have been

         directed to forthwith refund the amount already recovered. The

         Ld. CAT, while setting aside the aforesaid orders dated

         30.11.2018, 23.9.2021 and 18.2.2022, whereby the pay-scale of

         the respondent has been re-fixed, has also directed the

         petitioners to pass a reasoned and a speaking order regarding re-

         fixation of pay of the respondent within three months in view of

         the precedents as also considering the Railway Rules.

         2.      The brief facts of the case as averred in the original

         application filed by the respondent herein is that while he was

         working as Loco Pilot (Goods) in the pay-scale of Rs. 5500 -

         Rs. 9000/-, he was promoted to the post of Chief Loco

         Inspector-cum-Safety Counsellor in the pay-scale of Rs. 6500-

         Rs.10,500/- with effect from 01.04.2004, after being found

         suitable in the selection test conducted by the petitioner no. 5,

         whereafter he was posted under Senior Divisional Safety

         Officer, East Central Railway, Danapur vide order dated

         22.06.2004 as also his pay was fixed on promotion with effect
Patna High Court CWJC No.19257 of 2025 dt.22-01-2026
                                           3/30




         from 01.04.2004. The respondent had then drawn annual

         increments and all other benefits since 01.04.2004 till the month

         of September, 2020 and his basic pay had reached a sum of Rs.

         99,800/- which also included the effect of revision of pay-scale

         from time to time on account of implementation of the various

         recommendations of the Central Pay Commission, after due

         vetting by the Accounts Department. However, it is the case of

         the respondent that when he received the pay slip for the month

         of October, 2020, he found that his basic pay had been revised

         from a sum of Rs. 99,800/- to Rs. 86,100/- without the

         petitioners having passed any adverse order regarding reduction

         of pay-scale of the respondent. The respondent had then

         submitted a representation dated 24.11.2020 against the said

         reduction of pay, however neither any order was passed on the

         same nor he was communicated about the reasons for reducing

         his pay after 16 years, leading to the respondent filing an

         original application bearing O.A. No. 325 of 2021, which was

         dismissed as not pressed by an order dt. 09.07.2021, passed by

         the Ld. CAT, while recording the submission of the respondent

         that he wants to file a fresh representation.

         3.      The respondent had again submitted a representation on

         22.07.2021, however he received a show cause dated 23.9.2021
Patna High Court CWJC No.19257 of 2025 dt.22-01-2026
                                           4/30




         along with an order dated 30.11.2018, re-fixing the pay scale of

         the respondent with effect from 01.04.2004, wherein it had been

         stated that since his pay has wrongly been fixed with effect from

         the year 2004, the department has assessed that a sum of Rs.

         17,65,430/- is required to be recovered from him on account of

         over payment made to him, hence he may submit his show

         cause reply within 15 days. The respondent had then filed his

         reply to the aforesaid show cause notice on 06.10.2021, inter-

         alia stating therein that his pay has been correctly fixed as on

         01.04.2004 and the pay scale of similarly situated employees

         has not been reduced, apart from reference having been made to

         the Circular of the Railway Board dated 22.06.2016 issued in

         light of DoPT’s OM dated 02.03.2016, based on the judgment of

         the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Rafiq Masih

         which restrains recovery of any over payment made beyond five

         years of the date of alleged wrong fixation of pay. Nonetheless,

         without passing any order upon the reply submitted by the

         respondent on 6.10.2021, the petitioners started making

         recovery @ of Rs. 15000/- per month leading to the respondent

         having filed yet another Original Application bearing O.A. No.

         608 of 2021, which was disposed off by the learned CAT by an

         order dated 15.11.2021 directing the petitioners to take a
Patna High Court CWJC No.19257 of 2025 dt.22-01-2026
                                           5/30




         decision on the representation of the respondent at the earliest

         and till then the recovery was stayed.

         4.      It is the further case of the respondent herein that despite

         the order of the Ld. CAT dt. 15.11.2021, the petitioners neither

         stopped recovery being made from the salary of the respondent

         nor disposed off the representation filed by the respondent

         leading to the respondent filing a contempt petition bearing

         CCPA No. 02 of 2023, alleging therein non-compliance of the

         orders of Ld. CAT dated 15.11.2021, as corrected vide order

         dated 30.05.2022. In the show cause filed by the petitioners

         before the Ld. CAT a communication dt. 21.2.2022 containing

         speaking order dated 18.02.2022, passed by the petitioner no. 5

         was brought on record, whereby and whereunder the

         representation of the respondent had been rejected holding that

         the decision to re-fix the pay of the respondent and make

         recovery of the excess amount paid is correct and justified. The

         respondent had challenged the aforesaid orders dated 18.2.2022

         read with order dated 23.09.2021 and 30.11.2018, whereby and

         whereunder the basic pay of the respondent has been reduced

         and a sum of Rs. 17,65,430/- has been sought to be recovered

         from the monthly salary of the respondent by filing O.A. No.

         050/00764/2023. The respondent had also prayed before the Ld.
Patna High Court CWJC No.19257 of 2025 dt.22-01-2026
                                           6/30




         CAT to restore his basic pay to the tune of Rs. 99,800/- with

         effect from the month of October, 2020, which has been reduced

         to Rs. 86,100/- and refund the amount already deducted from his

         monthly salary.

         5.      The petitioners had filed written statement before the

         learned CAT wherein it has been stated that the respondent is

         working as CLI/Safety Counselor at Danapur and earlier his pay

         fixation was done upon promotion as follows- “current Basic

         pay + 30% of Current Basic Pay + DA + Promotion increment”

         while it should have been computed as follows – “current Basic

         pay + 30% of Current Basic pay + Promotion increment, as per

         the existing rule. Subsequently, it was detected that DA was not

         admissible, hence it ought not to have been added while fixing

         pay upon promotion earlier, hence pay fixation was corrected

         and the respondent was advised accordingly. It is further stated

         that upon examination, it was found that the pay of the

         respondent had been wrongly fixed w.e.f. 01.04.2004 itself.

         Thus, corrective measures were taken and fresh pay fixation was

         done on 30.11.2018 which is correct and in conformity of the

         rules. Accordingly, the respondent was informed about

         deduction vide office letter no. Estt./Pay fixation/Supervisor/20-

         21, Danapur dated 23.09.2021. The petitioners have also stated
Patna High Court CWJC No.19257 of 2025 dt.22-01-2026
                                           7/30




         in the written statement that the representation of the respondent

         was disposed off by a speaking order dated 18.02.2022 and the

         Circular of the Railway Board dated 22.06.2016, being relied

         upon by the respondent, is not relevant in the present case since

         the respondent will retire in the year 2026.

         6.      We find from the records that it had been submitted on

         behalf of the respondent before the learned CAT that the orders

         dated 18.02.2022, 23.09.2021 and 30.11.2018. pertaining to the

         reduction of basic pay and recovery of the over payment made

         are illegal and unjust as also against the law laid down by the

         Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab & Ors. vs.

         Rafiq Masih, reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334. It was further

         argued on behalf of the respondent before the learned CAT that

         the pay scale of similarly placed employees, promoted either

         before 01.04.2004 or even thereafter but before the year 2007,

         has neither been reduced nor any adverse order has been passed

         against such employees. In this connection, reliance was placed

         on a judgment dated 18.10.2022, passed by this Court in LPA

         No. 431 of 2021 (Surendra Mandal & Ors. vs. The State of

         Bihar & Ors.) as also upon the judgment rendered by the

         Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Thomas Daniel vs. State of

         Kerala and Others, reported in (2022) SCC online SC 536.
Patna High Court CWJC No.19257 of 2025 dt.22-01-2026
                                           8/30




         7.      The learned counsel for the petitioners herein has raised a

         challenge to the impugned order dated 31.01.2025 to the extent

         the Ld. CAT has quashed the order of recovery sought to be

         made from the monthly salary of the respondent, though the

         issue regarding re-fixation of pay has been remanded back to the

         petitioners’-authorities, who have been directed to pass a

         reasoned and a speaking order within three months. As far as the

         order of recovery is concerned, the learned counsel for the

         petitioners submits that firstly there is no infirmity in the

         assessment of the amount to be recovered from the respondent

         to the tune of Rs. 17,65,430/- and moreover, the petitioners are

         well within their right to make recovery as per the provisions

         contained in Rule 15 (1) (2) & 4 (i) (b) of the Railway Services

         (Pension) Rules, 1993 pertaining to recovery and adjustment of

         government or railway dues such as over payment, from

         pensionary benefits.

         8.      The learned counsel for the petitioners has also referred to

         the following judgments:-

                 (i) Judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the
                 case of Raj Kumar Batra vs. The State of Haryana,
                 reported in (1992) 1 SCT 129;

                 (ii) Judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the
                 case of G. Srinivas vs. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh & Ors,
Patna High Court CWJC No.19257 of 2025 dt.22-01-2026
                                           9/30




                 reported in (2005) 13 SCC 712;

                 (iii) Order dated 17.08.2012 passed by the Hon’ble Apex
                 Court in Civil Appeal No. 5899 of 2012, arising out of
                 SLP(c) No. 30858 of 2011 (Chandi Prasad Uniyal & Ors.
                 vs. State of Uttarakhand & Ors.), reported in (2012) 8
                 SCC 417 and,

                 (iv) Judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the
                 case of High Court of Punjab & Haryana vs. Jagdev
                 Singh, reported in (2016) 14 SCC 267.

         9.      The Ld. counsel for the petitioners has also submitted that

         recovery of monetary benefits wrongly extended to the

         employees, can only be interfered with, in cases where such

         recovery would result in a hardship, however in the present case

         more than five years of service was remaining at the time of

         assessment of the amount to be recovered from the respondent,

         hence the action of recovery would have caused no hardship to

         the respondent, thus the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex

         Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra) is not applicable in the

         facts and circumstances of the present case.

         10.     Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and

         having gone through the pleadings on record, we find that the

         issue regarding re-fixation of pay scale of the respondent with

         effect from the year 2004, leading to reduction of his pay scale

         from Rs. 99800/- to Rs. 86100/- with effect from the month of
Patna High Court CWJC No.19257 of 2025 dt.22-01-2026
                                          10/30




         October, 2020 has been remanded back to the petitioners for

         reconsideration in light of the Railway Rules and in view of the

         precedents, by way of re-fixation of the pay scale of other

         similarly situated employees, hence this aspect of the matter has

         not been seriously questioned, obviously for the reason that the

         said observation/direction of the Ld. CAT is not against the

         petitioners, however the setting aside of the order of recovery by

         the Ld. CAT has been vehemently contested, as aforesaid. Thus,

         the only issue to be adjudicated in the present writ petition is as

         to whether recovery of the excess amount paid to the respondent

         on account of wrong fixation of his pay scale is permissible or

         not. We find that the issue of entitlement of the employer to

         recover the amount paid in excess to the employee without any

         fault of the employee has been settled in a host of decisions by

         the Hon’ble Apex Court. The law in this regard is no longer res

         integra and we would gainfully refer to a catena of judgments

         rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court on the issue that recovery

         of the amount paid in excess to the employee by the employers,

         even in a case like the present one, is impermissible under the

         law. For ready reference we deem it fit and proper to refer to the

         following Judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court:-

                 (i). Judgment rendered in the case of Syed Abdul Qadir
Patna High Court CWJC No.19257 of 2025 dt.22-01-2026
                                          11/30




                 vs. State of Bihar, reported in (2009) 3 SCC 475;

                 (ii). Judgment rendered in the case of Shyam Babu
                 Verma vs. Union of India, reported in (1994)2 SCC 52;

                 (iii). Judgment rendered in the case of Sahib Ram vs.
                 State of Haryana, reported in (1995) Suppl.1 SCC 80;

                 (iv). Judgment rendered in the case of B.Ganga Ram vs.
                 Regional Joint Director, reported in (1997) 6 SCC 139;

                 (v). Judgment rendered in the case of Purshottam Lal
                 Das vs. State of Bihar, reported in (2006) 11 SCC 492;

                 (vi). Judgment rendered in the case of Bihar State
                 Electricity Board vs. Bijay Bhadur, reported in (2000)
                 10 SCC 99;

                 (vii). Judgment rendered in the case of B.J. Akkara vs.
                 Govt. of India University, reported in (2006) 11SCC 709;

                 (viii). Judgment rendered in the case of State of Punjab
                 vs. Rafique Masih, reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334;

                 (ix). Judgment rendered in the case of Thomas Daniel vs.
                 State of Kerala and Others, reported in (2022) SCC
                 Online SCC 536;

         11.     At this juncture, it would be relevant to reproduce

         paragraphs no. 3 to 18 of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble

         Apex Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra) herein below:-

                 “3. The issue that we have been required to adjudicate is,
                 whether all the private respondents, against whom an
                 order of recovery (of the excess amount) has been made,
                 should be exempted in law, from the reimbursement of the
                 same to the employer. For the applicability of the instant
Patna High Court CWJC No.19257 of 2025 dt.22-01-2026
                                          12/30




                 order, and the conclusions recorded by us hereinafter, the
                 ingredients depicted in the foregoing two paragraphs are
                 essentially indispensable.
                 4. Merely on account of the fact that the release of these
                 monetary benefits was based on a mistaken belief at the
                 hands of the employer, and further, because the
                 employees had no role in the determination of the
                 employer, could it be legally feasible, for the private
                 respondents to assert that they should be exempted from
                 refunding the excess amount received by them? Insofar as
                 the above issue is concerned, it is necessary to keep in
                 mind, that the following reference was made by a
                 Division Bench [Rakesh Kumar v. State of Haryana,
                 (2014) 8 SCC 892] of two Judges of this Court, for
                 consideration by a larger Bench:
                    “2. In view of an apparent difference of views
                    expressed on the one hand in Shyam Babu Verma v.
                    Union of India [(1994) 2 SCC 521] and Sahib Ram v.
                    State of Haryana [1995 Supp (1) SCC 18]; and on the
                    other hand in Chandi Prasad Uniyal v. State of
                    Uttarakhand [(2012) 8 SCC 417], we are of the view
                    that the remaining special leave petitions should be
                    placed before a Bench of three Judges. The Registry is
                    accordingly directed to place the file of the remaining
                    special leave petitions before the Hon'ble the Chief
                    Justice of India for taking instructions for the
                    constitution of a Bench of three Judges, to adjudicate
                    upon the present controversy.”
                 5. The aforesaid reference was answered by a Division
                 Bench of three Judges on 8-7-2014. While disposing of
                 the reference, the three-Judge [State of Punjab v. Rafiq
                 Masih, (2014) 8 SCC 883] Division Bench, recorded the
                 following observations in para 6:
                    “6. In our considered view, the observations made by
                    the Court not to recover the excess amount paid to the
                    appellant therein were in exercise of its extraordinary
                    powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India
Patna High Court CWJC No.19257 of 2025 dt.22-01-2026
                                          13/30




                    which vest the power in this Court to pass equitable
                    orders in the ends of justice.”
                 Having recorded the above observations, the reference
                 was answered as under:
                    “13. Therefore, in our opinion, the decisions of the
                    Court based on different scales of Article 136 and
                    Article 142 of the Constitution of India cannot be best
                    weighed on the same grounds of reasoning and thus in
                    view of the aforesaid discussion, there is no conflict in
                    the views expressed in the first two judgments [Shyam
                    Babu Verma v. Union of India, (1994) 2 SCC 521],
                    [Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana, 1995 Supp (1) SCC
                    18] and the latter judgment [Chandi Prasad Uniyal v.
                    State of Uttarakhand, (2012) 8 SCC 417].
                    14. In that view of the above, we are of the considered
                    opinion that reference was unnecessary. Therefore,
                    without answering the reference, we send back the
                    matters to the Division Bench for their appropriate
                    disposal.”
                 6. In view of the conclusions extracted hereinabove, it
                 will be our endeavour, to lay down the parameters of fact
                 situations, wherein employees, who are beneficiaries of
                 wrongful monetary gains at the hands of the employer,
                 may not be compelled to refund the same. In our
                 considered view, the instant benefit cannot extend to an
                 employee merely on account of the fact, that he was not
                 an accessory to the mistake committed by the employer;
                 or merely because the employee did not furnish any
                 factually incorrect information, on the basis whereof the
                 employer committed the mistake of paying the employee
                 more than what was rightfully due to him; or for that
                 matter, merely because the excessive payment was made
                 to the employee, in absence of any fraud or
                 misrepresentation at the behest of the employee.
                 7. Having examined a number of judgments rendered by
                 this Court, we are of the view, that orders passed by the
                 employer seeking recovery of monetary benefits wrongly
Patna High Court CWJC No.19257 of 2025 dt.22-01-2026
                                          14/30




                 extended to the employees, can only be interfered with, in
                 cases where such recovery would result in a hardship of a
                 nature, which would far outweigh, the equitable balance
                 of the employer's right to recover. In other words,
                 interference would be called for, only in such cases
                 where, it would be iniquitous to recover the payment
                 made. In order to ascertain the parameters of the above
                 consideration, and the test to be applied, reference needs
                 to be made to situations when this Court exempted
                 employees from such recovery, even in exercise of its
                 jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.
                 Repeated exercise of such power, “for doing complete
                 justice in any cause” would establish that the recovery
                 being effected was iniquitous, & therefore, arbitrary. And
                 accordingly, the interference at the hands of this Court.
                 8. As between two parties, if a determination is rendered
                 in favour of the party, which is the weaker of the two,
                 without any serious detriment to the other (which is truly
                 a welfare State), the issue resolved would be in
                 consonance with the concept of justice, which is assured
                 to the citizens of India, even in the Preamble of the
                 Constitution of India. The right to recover being pursued
                 by the employer, will have to be compared, with the effect
                 of the recovery on the employee concerned. If the effect of
                 the recovery from the employee concerned would be,
                 more unfair, more wrongful, more improper, and more
                 unwarranted, than the corresponding right of the
                 employer to recover the amount, then it would be
                 iniquitous and arbitrary, to effect the recovery. In such a
                 situation, the employee's right would outbalance, and
                 therefore eclipse, the right of the employer to recover.
                 9. The doctrine of equality is a dynamic and evolving
                 concept having many dimensions. The embodiment of the
                 doctrine of equality can be found in Articles 14 to 18
                 contained in Part III of the Constitution of India, dealing
                 with “fundamental rights”. These articles of the
                 Constitution, besides assuring equality before the law and
                 equal protection of the laws, also disallow discrimination
Patna High Court CWJC No.19257 of 2025 dt.22-01-2026
                                          15/30




                 with the object of achieving equality, in matters of
                 employment; abolish untouchability, to upgrade the
                 social status of an ostracised section of the society; and
                 extinguish titles, to scale down the status of a section of
                 the society, with such appellations. The embodiment of
                 the doctrine of equality, can also be found in Articles 38,
                 39, 39-A, 43 and 46 contained in Part IV of the
                 Constitution of India, dealing with the “directive
                 principles of State policy”. These articles of the
                 Constitution of India contain a mandate to the State
                 requiring it to assure a social order providing justice—
                 social, economic and political, by inter alia minimising
                 monetary inequalities, & by securing the right to adequate
                 means of livelihood, and by providing for adequate wages
                 so as to ensure, an appropriate standard of life, and by
                 promoting economic interests of the weaker sections.
                 10. In view of the aforestated constitutional mandate,
                 equity and good conscience in the matter of livelihood of
                 the people of this country has to be the basis of all
                 governmental actions. An action of the State, ordering a
                 recovery from an employee, would be in order, so long as
                 it is not rendered iniquitous to the extent that the action of
                 recovery would be more unfair, more wrongful, more
                 improper, and more unwarranted, than the corresponding
                 right of the employer, to recover the amount. Or in other
                 words, till such time as the recovery would have a harsh
                 and arbitrary effect on the employee, it would be
                 permissible in law. Orders passed in given situations
                 repeatedly, even in exercise of the power vested in this
                 Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, will
                 disclose the parameters of the realm of an action of
                 recovery (of an excess amount paid to an employee)
                 which would breach the obligations of the State, to
                 citizens of this country, and render the action arbitrary,
                 and therefore, violative of the mandate contained in
                 Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
                 11. For the above determination, we shall refer to some
                 precedents of this Court wherein the question of recovery
Patna High Court CWJC No.19257 of 2025 dt.22-01-2026
                                          16/30




                 of the excess amount paid to the employees, came up for
                 consideration, and this Court disallowed the same. These
                 are situations, in which High Courts all over the country,
                 repeatedly and regularly set aside orders of recovery
                 made on the expressed parameters.
                 12. Reference may first of all be made to the decision in
                 Syed Abdul Qadir v. State of Bihar [(2009) 3 SCC 475],
                 wherein this Court recorded the following observation in
                 para 58:
                    “58. The relief against recovery is granted by courts
                    not because of any right in the employees, but in
                    equity, exercising judicial discretion to relieve the
                    employees from the hardship that will be caused if
                    recovery is ordered. But, if in a given case, it is proved
                    that the employee had knowledge that the payment
                    received was in excess of what was due or wrongly
                    paid, or in cases where the error is detected or
                    corrected within a short time of wrong payment, the
                    matter being in the realm of judicial discretion, courts
                    may, on the facts and circumstances of any particular
                    case, order for recovery of the amount paid in excess.
                    See Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana [1995 Supp (1)
                    SCC 18], Shyam Babu Verma v. Union of India [(1994)
                    2 SCC 521], Union of India v. M. Bhaskar [(1996) 4
                    SCC 416], V. Gangaram v. Director [(1997)6 SCC
                    139], B.J. Akkara v. Govt. of India [(2006) 11 SCC
                    709], Purshottam Lal Das v. State of Bihar [(2006) 11
                    SCC 492], Punjab National Bank v. Manjeet Singh
                    [(2006) 8 SCC 647] and Bihar SEB v. Bijay Bhadur
                    [(2000) 10 SCC 99].”
                 13. First and foremost, it is pertinent to note, that this
                 Court in its judgment in Syed Abdul Qadir case [(2009) 3
                 SCC 475] recognised, that the issue of recovery revolved
                 on the action being iniquitous. Dealing with the subject of
                 the action being iniquitous, it was sought to be
                 concluded, that when the excess unauthorised payment is
                 detected within a short period of time, it would be open
Patna High Court CWJC No.19257 of 2025 dt.22-01-2026
                                          17/30




                 for the employer to recover the same. Conversely, if the
                 payment had been made for a long duration of time, it
                 would be iniquitous to make any recovery. Interference
                 because an action is iniquitous, must really be perceived
                 as, interference because the action is arbitrary. All
                 arbitrary actions are truly, actions in violation of Article
                 14 of the Constitution of India. The logic of the action in
                 the instant situation, is iniquitous, or arbitrary, or
                 violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India,
                 because it would be almost impossible for an employee to
                 bear the financial burden, of a refund of payment
                 received wrongfully for a long span of time. It is
                 apparent, that a government employee is primarily
                 dependent on his wages, and if a deduction is to be made
                 from his/her wages, it should not be a deduction which
                 would make it difficult for the employee to provide for the
                 needs of his family. Besides food, clothing and shelter, an
                 employee has to cater, not only to the education needs of
                 those dependent upon him, but also their medical
                 requirements, and a variety of sundry expenses. Based on
                 the above consideration, we are of the view, that if the
                 mistake of making a wrongful payment is detected within
                 five years, it would be open to the employer to recover the
                 same. However, if the payment is made for a period in
                 excess of five years, even though it would be open to the
                 employer to correct the mistake, it would be extremely
                 iniquitous and arbitrary to seek a refund of the payments
                 mistakenly made to the employee.
                 14. In this context, reference may also be made to the
                 decision rendered by this Court in Shyam Babu Verma v.
                 Union of India [(1994) 2 SCC 521], wherein this Court
                 observed as under:
                    “11. Although we have held that the petitioners were
                    entitled only to the pay scale of Rs 330-480 in terms of
                    the recommendations of the Third Pay Commission
                    w.e.f. 1-1-1973 and only after the period of 10 years,
                    they became entitled to the pay scale of Rs 330-560 but
                    as they have received the scale of Rs 330-560 since
Patna High Court CWJC No.19257 of 2025 dt.22-01-2026
                                          18/30




                    1973 due to no fault of theirs and that scale is being
                    reduced in the year 1984 with effect from 1-1-1973, it
                    shall only be just and proper not to recover any excess
                    amount which has already been paid to them.
                    Accordingly, we direct that no steps should be taken to
                    recover or to adjust any excess amount paid to the
                    petitioners due to the fault of the respondents, the
                    petitioners being in no way responsible for the same.”
                 15. Examining a similar proposition, this Court in B.J.
                 Akkara v. Govt. of India [(2006) 11 SCC 709] observed as
                 under:
                    “28. Such relief, restraining back recovery of excess
                    payment, is granted by courts not because of any right
                    in the employees, but in equity, in exercise of judicial
                    discretion to relieve the employees from the hardship
                    that will be caused if recovery is implemented. A
                    government servant, particularly one in the lower
                    rungs of service would spend whatever emoluments he
                    receives for the upkeep of his family. If he receives an
                    excess payment for a long period, he would spend it,
                    genuinely believing that he is entitled to it. As any
                    subsequent action to recover the excess payment will
                    cause undue hardship to him, relief is granted in that
                    behalf. But where the employee had knowledge that the
                    payment received was in excess of what was due or
                    wrongly paid, or where the error is detected or
                    corrected within a short time of wrong payment, courts
                    will not grant relief against recovery. The matter being
                    in the realm of judicial discretion, courts may on the
                    facts and circumstances of any particular case refuse
                    to grant such relief against recovery.”
                 A perusal of the aforesaid observations made by this
                 Court in B.J. Akkara case [(2006) 11 SCC 709] reveals a
                 reiteration of the legal position recorded in the earlier
                 judgments rendered by this Court, inasmuch as, it was
                 again affirmed, that the right to recover would be
                 sustainable so long as the same was not iniquitous or
Patna High Court CWJC No.19257 of 2025 dt.22-01-2026
                                          19/30




                 arbitrary. In the observation extracted above, this Court
                 also recorded, that recovery from the employees in lower
                 rung of service, would result in extreme hardship to them.
                 The apparent explanation for the aforesaid conclusion is,
                 that the employees in lower rung of service would spend
                 their entire earnings in the upkeep and welfare of their
                 family, and if such excess payment is allowed to be
                 recovered from them, it would cause them far more
                 hardship, than the reciprocal gains to the employer. We
                 are therefore satisfied in concluding, that such recovery
                 from employees belonging to the lower rungs (i.e. Class
                 III and Class IV—sometimes denoted as Group C and
                 Group D) of service, should not be subjected to the ordeal
                 of any recovery, even though they were beneficiaries of
                 receiving higher emoluments, than were due to them.
                 Such recovery would be iniquitous and arbitrary and
                 therefore would also breach the mandate contained in
                 Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
                 16. This Court in Syed Abdul Qadir v. State of Bihar
                 [(2009) 3 SCC 475] held as follows:
                    “59. Undoubtedly, the excess amount that has been
                    paid to the appellant teachers was not because of any
                    misrepresentation or fraud on their part and the
                    appellants also had no knowledge that the amount that
                    was being paid to them was more than what they were
                    entitled to. It would not be out of place to mention here
                    that the Finance Department had, in its counter-
                    affidavit, admitted that it was a bona fide mistake on
                    their part. The excess payment made was the result of
                    wrong interpretation of the rule that was applicable to
                    them, for which the appellants cannot be held
                    responsible. Rather, the whole confusion was because
                    of inaction, negligence and carelessness of the officials
                    concerned of the Government of Bihar. The learned
                    counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant teachers
                    submitted that majority of the beneficiaries have either
                    retired or are on the verge of it. Keeping in view the
                    peculiar facts and circumstances of the case at hand
Patna High Court CWJC No.19257 of 2025 dt.22-01-2026
                                          20/30




                    and to avoid any hardship to the appellant teachers,
                    we are of the view that no recovery of the amount that
                    has been paid in excess to the appellant teachers
                    should be made.”
                 Premised on the legal proposition considered above,
                 namely, whether on the touchstone of equity and
                 arbitrariness, the extract of the judgment reproduced
                 above, culls out yet another consideration, which would
                 make the process of recovery iniquitous and arbitrary. It
                 is apparent from the conclusions drawn in Syed Abdul
                 Qadir case [(2009) 3 SCC 475], that recovery of excess
                 payments, made from the employees who have retired
                 from service, or are close to their retirement, would entail
                 extremely harsh consequences outweighing the monetary
                 gains by the employer. It cannot be forgotten, that a
                 retired employee or an employee about to retire, is a class
                 apart from those who have sufficient service to their
                 credit, before their retirement. Needless to mention, that
                 at retirement, an employee is past his youth, his needs are
                 far in excess of what they were when he was younger.
                 Despite that, his earnings have substantially dwindled (or
                 would substantially be reduced on his retirement).
                 Keeping the aforesaid circumstances in mind, we are
                 satisfied that recovery would be iniquitous and arbitrary,
                 if it is sought to be made after the date of retirement, or
                 soon before retirement. A period within one year from the
                 date of superannuation, in our considered view, should be
                 accepted as the period during which the recovery should
                 be treated as iniquitous. Therefore, it would be justified to
                 treat an order of recovery, on account of wrongful
                 payment made to an employee, as arbitrary, if the
                 recovery is sought to be made after the employee's
                 retirement, or within one year from the date of his
                 retirement on superannuation.
                 17. Last of all, reference may be made to the decision in
                 Sahib Ram v. Union of India [1995 Supp (1) SCC 18]
                 wherein it was concluded as under:
Patna High Court CWJC No.19257 of 2025 dt.22-01-2026
                                          21/30




                    “4. Mr Prem Malhotra, learned counsel for the
                    appellant, contended that the previous scale of Rs 220-
                    550 to which the appellant was entitled became Rs
                    700-1600 since the appellant had been granted that
                    scale of pay in relaxation of the educational
                    qualification. The High Court was, therefore, not right
                    in dismissing the writ petition. We do not find any force
                    in this contention. It is seen that the Government in
                    consultation with the University Grants Commission
                    had revised the pay scale of a Librarian working in the
                    colleges to Rs 700-1600 but they insisted upon the
                    minimum educational qualification of first or second
                    class MA, MSc, MCom plus a first or second class
                    BLib Science or a Diploma in Library Science. The
                    relaxation given was only as regards obtaining first or
                    second class in the prescribed educational
                    qualification but not relaxation in the educational
                    qualification itself.
                    5. Admittedly the appellant does not possess the
                    required educational qualifications. Under the
                    circumstances the appellant would not be entitled to
                    the relaxation. The Principal erred in granting him the
                    relaxation. Since the date of relaxation the appellant
                    had been paid his salary on the revised scale. However,
                    it is not on account of any misrepresentation made by
                    the appellant that the benefit of the higher pay scale
                    was given to him but by wrong construction made by
                    the Principal for which the appellant cannot be held to
                    be at fault. Under the circumstances the amount paid
                    till date may not be recovered from the appellant. The
                    principle of equal pay for equal work would not apply
                    to the scales prescribed by the University Grants
                    Commission. The appeal is allowed partly without any
                    order as to costs.”
                                                        (emphasis supplied)
                    It would be pertinent to mention, that Librarians were
                    equated with Lecturers, for the grant of the pay scale
Patna High Court CWJC No.19257 of 2025 dt.22-01-2026
                                          22/30




                    of Rs 700-1600. The above pay parity would extend to
                    Librarians, subject to the condition that they possessed
                    the prescribed minimum educational qualification (first
                    or second class MA, MSc, MCom plus a first or second
                    class BLib Science or a diploma in Library Science,
                    the degree of MLib Science being a preferential
                    qualification). For those Librarians appointed prior to
                    3-12-1972, the educational qualifications were relaxed.
                    In Sahib Ram case [1995 Supp (1) SCC 18], a mistake
                    was committed by wrongly extending to the appellants
                    the revised pay scale, by relaxing the prescribed
                    educational qualifications, even though the appellants
                    concerned were ineligible for the same. The appellants
                    concerned were held not eligible for the higher scale,
                    by applying the principle of “equal pay for equal
                    work”. This Court, in the above circumstances, did not
                    allow the recovery of the excess payment. This was
                    apparently done because this Court felt that the
                    employees were entitled to wages, for the post against
                    which they had discharged their duties. In the above
                    view of the matter, we are of the opinion, that it would
                    be iniquitous and arbitrary for an employer to require
                    an employee to refund the wages of a higher post,
                    against which he had wrongfully been permitted to
                    work, though he should have rightfully been required
                    to work against an inferior post.
                 18. It is not possible to postulate all situations of
                 hardship which would govern employees on the issue of
                 recovery, where payments have mistakenly been made by
                 the employer, in excess of their entitlement. Be that as it
                 may, based on the decisions referred to hereinabove, we
                 may, as a ready reference, summarise the following few
                 situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, would be
                 impermissible in law:
                    (i) Recovery from the employees belonging to Class III
                    & Class IV service (or Group C and Group D service).
                    (ii) Recovery from the retired employees, or the
Patna High Court CWJC No.19257 of 2025 dt.22-01-2026
                                          23/30




                    employees who are due to retire within one year, of the
                    order of recovery.
                    (iii) Recovery from the employees, when the excess
                    payment has been made for a period in excess of five
                    years, before the order of recovery is issued.
                    (iv) Recovery in cases where an employee has
                    wrongfully been required to discharge duties of a
                    higher post, and has been paid accordingly, even
                    though he should have rightfully been required to work
                    against an inferior post.
                    (v) In any other case, where the court arrives at the
                    conclusion, that recovery if made from the employee,
                    would be iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary to such an
                    extent, as would far outweigh the equitable balance of
                    the employer's right to recover.”
         12.     A bare perusal of the aforesaid judgment rendered in the

         case of Rafiq Masih (supra) would show that the judgment

         rendered in the case of Chandi Prasad Uniyal has though been

         considered but has been departed from in view of the law laid

         down in a catena of judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Apex

         Court in the case of Shyam Babu Verma (supra), Sahib Ram

         (supra), M. Bhaskar (supra), B. Ganga Ram (supra), Bijay

         Bhadur (supra),         Purshottam Lal Das (supra), B.J. Akkara

         (supra) and Syed Abdul Qadir (supra) and accordingly based on

         the said decisions five situations have been summarized where

         though payments have been made mistakenly to the employees

         by the employers, in excess of their entitlement but recovery by

         the employers would be impermissible in law and one of such
Patna High Court CWJC No.19257 of 2025 dt.22-01-2026
                                          24/30




         situation envisaged therein is “recovery from the employees,

         when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess

         of five years, before the order of recovery is issued”. In fact, the

         Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra) has also

         held that recovery would be impermissible in law in any other

         case, where the court arrives at the conclusion, that recovery if

         made from the employee, would be iniquitous or harsh or

         arbitrary to such an extent, as would far outweigh the equitable

         balance of the employer's right to recover.

         13.     Now, coming back to the present case we find from the

         records that recovery has been sought to be made from the

         respondent, pertaining to excess payment made to him, for a

         period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery dated

         23.09.2021 was issued by the Divisional Personnel Officer, East

         Central Railway, Danapur, wherein it has been stated that as per

         the RBE No. 67/2007 and re-fixation V.O.O No. EL/Pay

         fixation/ Supervisor/ II dated 05.12.2014, the respondent’s pay

         fixation was done in excess since the year 2004, hence the same

         has been rectified and re-fixation of pay has been done,

         resulting in the amount of deduction (recovery) totaling to a sum

         of Rs. 17,65,430/-, hence if the respondent has got any

         objection, he can file his written representation within 15 days.
Patna High Court CWJC No.19257 of 2025 dt.22-01-2026
                                          25/30




         In fact, by an internal communication dt. 30.11.2018, a detailed

         calculation chart was prepared and circulated with regard to re-

         fixation of the pay of the respondent with effect from

         01.04.2004. Subsequently, the petitioner no. 5 had passed an

         order dt. 18.02.2022 on the representation of the respondent,

         holding that recovery of excess amount paid to the respondent is

         justified inasmuch as the same is not harsh, since the pay of the

         respondent was rectified in the year 2018 whereas he will

         superannuate on 31.01.2026, thus it is clear that more than five

         years before the retirement of the respondent, pay has been re-

         fixed, therefore neither the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble

         Apex Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra) nor RBE No.

         72/2016 shall be applicable to the case of the respondent.

         14.     We further find that paragraph No. 18 of the judgment

         rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rafiq Masih

         (supra) has been accepted by the Government of India and

         accordingly Office Memorandum dated 02.03.2016 has been

         issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances &

         Pensions, Department of Personnel & Training, Government of

         India, paragraph no. 5 whereof is reproduced herein below:-

                 “5. The matter has, consequently, been examined in
                 consultation with the Department of Expenditure and the
Patna High Court CWJC No.19257 of 2025 dt.22-01-2026
                                          26/30




                 Department        of    Legal     Affairs.   The   Ministries   /
                 Departments are advised to deal with the issue of
                 wrongful / excess payments made to Government servants
                 in accordance with above decision of the Hon'ble
                 Supreme Court in CA No.11527 of 2014 (arising out of
                 SLP (C) No.11684 of 2012) in State of Punjab and others
                 etc. vs Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc. However,
                 wherever the waiver of recovery in the above-mentioned
                 situations is considered, the same may be allowed with
                 the express approval of Department of Expenditure in
                 terms of this Department's OM No.18/26/2011-Estt (Pay-
                 I) dated 6th February, 2014.”

         15.     The aforesaid Office Memorandum dated 02.03.2016 has

         been adopted mutatis mutandis and made applicable to the

         Railway employees vide RBE No. 72/2016 dated 22.06.2016

         issued by the Railway Board, Ministry of Railways.

         16.     As far as the present case is concerned, the same is

         squarely covered by paragraph no. 18 (iii) of the judgment

         rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rafiq Masih

         (supra), since in the present case recovery has been sought to be

         made pertaining to excess payment made to the respondent for a

         period in excess of five years, before issuance of the order of

         recovery dated 23.09.2021 by the Divisional Personnel Officer,

         East Central Railway, Danapur, whereby the amount of recovery

         has been quantified to be a sum of Rs. 17,65,430/-. Admittedly,
Patna High Court CWJC No.19257 of 2025 dt.22-01-2026
                                          27/30




         the excess payment has been assessed to have been made in the

         present case for a period in excess of five years i.e. with effect

         from the year 2004 till the month of September, 2020 which

         totals up to about 17 years. Thus, we find that the contention of

         the petitioners to the effect that the judgment rendered in the

         case of Rafiq Masih (supra) is not applicable in the facts and

         circumstances of the present case, since more than five years of

         service was remaining at the time the assessment of the amount

         to be recovered was made, leading to the respondent having not

         suffered any hardship, is fallacious. In the present case

         admittedly, the excess payment has been made to the respondent

         for a period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery

         was issued, as is apparent from the table/ chart reproduced in the

         aforesaid letter dated 30.11.2018, re-fixing and reducing the pay

         of the respondent with effect from the year 2004 up to

         01.07.2017. Consequently, we find that the case of the

         respondent is not only covered by the law laid down by the

         Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra) but also

         by the Office Memorandum dated 02.03.2016, issued by the

         Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions,

         Department of Personnel & Training, Government of India and

         RBE No. 72/2016 dated 22.06.2016, issued by the Railway
Patna High Court CWJC No.19257 of 2025 dt.22-01-2026
                                          28/30




         Board, Ministry of Railways.

         17.     Now coming to the judgments referred to by the learned

         counsel for the petitioners, we are of the view that none of them

         would be applicable in the present case, since the law laid down

         in the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case

         of Rafiq Masih (supra) has been adopted by the petitioners vide

         RBE No. 72/2016 dated 22.06.2016, issued by the Railway

         Board, Ministry of Railways. Nonetheless, as far as the

         judgments rendered in the case of Raj Kumar Batra (supra) and

         G. Srinivas (supra) are concerned, they merely postulate that in

         case mistake is detected, the same can be rectified by the

         authority. As regards the judgment rendered in the case of

         Chandi Prasad Uniyal (supra), we find that the judgment

         rendered in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra) has already dealt

         with the same and only thereafter, the Hon’ble Apex Court has

         summarized the situations where recoveries by the employers is

         impermissible in law. Now, coming to the case of Jagdev Singh

         (supra), the same is distinguishable in the facts and

         circumstances of the present case inasmuch as in the said case

         the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that since the officer to whom

         the payment was made in excess was clearly placed on notice

         that any payment found to have been made in excess would be
Patna High Court CWJC No.19257 of 2025 dt.22-01-2026
                                          29/30




         required to be refunded, the officer is bound by his undertaking,

         hence the recovery is permissible, however the same is not the

         case in the present matter. Nevertheless, we find that in a catena

         of judgments referred to hereinabove in the preceding

         paragraphs, the Hon’ble Apex Court has categorically held that

         in case there is no misrepresentation on the part of the employee

         leading to excess payment being made to him on the head of

         salary, no recovery is permissible.

         18.     Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the

         present case and for the foregoing reasons, we find that the

         present case is squarely covered by the Office Memorandum

         dated 02.03.2016, issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Public

         Grievances & Pensions, Department of Personnel & Training,

         Government of India as also by the RBE No. 72/2016 dated

         22.06.2016, issued by the Railway Board, Ministry of Railways,

         whereby the petitioners have accepted the decision rendered by

         the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra),

         hence no recovery is permissible as far as the case of the

         respondent herein is concerned, even if the petitioners pass an

         adverse order regarding re-fixation of pay of the respondent, in

         pursuance of the directions issued to the petitioners by the Ld.

         CAT by the impugned Order dated 31.01.2025 to pass a
             Patna High Court CWJC No.19257 of 2025 dt.22-01-2026
                                                       30/30




                      reasoned and a speaking order regarding re-fixation of pay of

                      the respondent within three months in view of the precedents as

                      also considering the Railway Rules. Thus, we do not find any

                      infirmity much less any perversity in the impugned order dated

                      31.01.2025 passed by the learned CAT in O.A. No.

                      050/00764/2023, hence the present writ petition is dismissed

                      being bereft of any merit.


                                                (Mohit Kumar Shah, J)


                                                 (Shailendra Singh, J)
S.Sb/-
AFR/NAFR                AFR
CAV DATE                N/A
Uploading Date          22.01.2026
Transmission Date       N/A