The High Court · 2025

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA WRIT PETITION NO: 1239 7 0F 2025 Between: M.A.Khader, S/o Late Md 'C't O/o SIr/, Kachegud 137tct1tA, Street No.9 Telangana. AND fGroup .Siddiq, aged 63 years Retd tr/lail/Espress R S.. Hvderabad Dtvtston S C Ruilway' R/o H No 6-'1- s:iirrr''"""rt*"J pao"a- rio Nagar' secunderabad -Guard .....PETiTIONER 2 The General lt/anager, S C Railway' Rail Nilayam'

1. Union of lndia ReP bY its Secunderabad-500071 ' The Divisional Railway Manager' U.V1"^':!39 division' S C Railway' Hvi"lrl"rJ er,rvin' secunaeiabad -50007 I The Senior Divisional Personnel officer, Hyderabad division, S,C.Railway' Hfi ""t;;; The Senior Divisional Financial I/a1a-011.llyderabad division' S C Railway' Hyderabad Bhavan. Secunderabad -5UUU / enauan, Secunderabad -500071 .L 4 J .,..RESPONDENTS Petition circumstances Under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the stated in the affidavit filed therewith' the High Court may be leased to set-aside the Judgment in O A No 211292 of 2O21 daled 21 .06 2024 p Hyderabad Bench and passed by the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal one in the Nature of Writ issue an appropriate order or directions more particularly ecovered amount of Rs of Mandamus directing the Respondents to pay the r d grant 1,96,958/- with interest @ 10 percentage per annum w e f 15 '10 2019 an all consequentia! beneflts to the Petitioner Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI G.PAVANA MURTHY 9gyL"_:1.r9. ttre Respondents : SRt M.VtJAy KUMAR, LEARNED SENTOR STANDING COUNSEL FOR CENTRAL GOVERNMENT The Court made the following ORDER THE HON'BLE SRT JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVT EADA WRIT PETITION No.L2397 0F 2025 ORDER: (Per the Hon'bLe Si Jltsttce Abhitnnd Kumar Shouili) Aggrieved by the order dated 21.06.2024 passed in O.A.No.292 of 2021 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad (for short, 'the Tribunal'), the present Writ Petition is filed.

2. Heard Sri G. Pavana Murthy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri M' Vij ay Kumar, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Central Government, appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 4.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had contended that the petitioner had worked as a Mail/trxpress Guard under the administrative control of respondent No'2 and owing to his ill-health, he had taken voluntary retirement on medical grounds with effect from 02'07 '2019 and got relieved. Thereafter, the respondents have issued proceedings dated. O 1.08.2O 19 rx'herein they have deducted an amount of Rs' 1,96,958/- on the ground that the 2 AI(S,J & ETD.J \qp 12397 2025 respondents have paid excess leave encashment amount to the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner had further contended that the issue raised in this Writ petition is squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon,ble Supreme Court in the case of State of punjab & others u. Rafiq Masih (White Washer)t, and in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said judgment, the respondents should not have recovered anv amount from the petitioner after his retirement. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached the Tribunal by filing O.A.No.292 of 2O2I and the Tribunal uid.e order. dated 2L.O6.2O24, was pleased to dismiss the said O.A., without appreciating any of the contentions raised by the petitioner. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the Writ petition by setting aside the order, dated 21.06.2024, passed in O.A.No.292 of 2O2l by the Tribunal and further direct the respondents to refund the excess arnount of Rs.1,96,95g/_ recovered from the petitioner towards leave encashment.

5. On the other hand, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 4 had contended that the '1zotsy+ scc ::+ i I I i i 3 AKS,J & ETD,J \w 12397 2025 respondents have erroneously calculated the leave encashment arnount and paid the same to the petitioner' Upon the said error being brought to their notice' the respondents were justified in recovering the excess amount from the petitioner, as per the proceedings dated O1'08'2019' Learned Senior Standing Counsel for respondent Nos'2 6. to 4 further relied upon the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s Steel Authority Of India Ltd' v' Raghbendra Singhz, n'herein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that, if an employee is liable for penal rent' then the said amount can be adjusted against the dues payable including gratuity. As admittedly, the respondents have erroneously paid excess leave encashment amotlnt to the petitioner and they were justified in recovering the said amount from his gratuity' Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the aforesaid O 'A' ' Hence' there are no merits in the Writ Petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 7 . This Court, having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel on either side, is of the considered view that the issue raised in the present Writ Petition is I Special Leave to Appeal (C) No lt025 of2020 dated l5 l2'2020 I AiiS,J & ETD,.J wp t2397 2025 squareiy covered by the judgment of the Honourabre Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih,s case (supra 1). As per the said judgment, no amounts can be deducted from Group-c and Group-D employees. Admittedly, the petitioner is a Group-C employee, and the amount erroneously calculated and paid b,v the employer to the petitioner cannot be recovered. In the instant case, the respondents have erroneously calculated the leave encashment amount and recovered the said amount after the petitioner,s retirement_ Such recovery is impermissible in view of the ra.*, laid doq,n by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih,s case (supra 2). Therefore, the order dated 21.O6.2O24 passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.292 of 2021, is iiable to be set aside arrd is accordingly set aside. The respondents are directed to refund the amount of Rs. 1,96,958/_ to the petitioner.

8. After dictating this judgment, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 relied upon the Office Memorandum dated 20.1O.2023, contending that even leave salary amounts can be recovered from emplovees after their retirement from service. This Court, having consrdered the said Office Memorandum, is of the considered vie,"v that it has no application to the present case. As the petitioner 5 AKS,J & ETD,J w 12397 2025 retiredfromserviceintheyear2}tg'theOffice Memorandum dated 20.10.2023 carLrrot have retrospective effect and therefore, it will not come to the rescue of the respondents.

9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed' There shall be no order as to costs.

10. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any' shall stand closed. SD'-S' MALLIKARJUNA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SEC FFICER To Secu nderabad-500071 ' .1 . The General l\ilanager, Union of lndia, S.C-Railway, Rail Nilayam' , il$;i;;;iiR,it*'v rVIanaser' Hvq"'9!39 division' s c Railwav' - UvO"rrUrO Bhavan' Secunderabad -500071 ' 3.TheseniorDivisionalp"r.""""rotri".r,Hyderabaddivision'scRailway' " H;;.r;b; Bhavan, Secunderabad 5ooo71' 4 The senior Divisionat Fi;;;;;M;rs"r, Hyderabad division, s.c Railwav' - UrO"trUrO Bhavan, Secunderabad 500071 5 &. #; snr c-pnvnNn NIURTHY' Advocate [oPUC] 6. One CC to SRI M VIJAYiiJM;N, ITNNT.IEO SENIOR STANDING COU NSEL FOR CENTRAi COVTANT',T EI'iT, AdVOCAIE TOPUCI

7. Two CD CoPies SA BS t t ) .11 EP ilE :-ri ., ,,/ :\ ,,i -. \' ." -.. * ,// ' ..-, --' '7 02 5 1 + ,:) ' Fsni HIGH COURT DATED:22 t|tt2O2S I i I I I I I I j I I I i i i I ; I I I l, ORDER WP.No.1239T of 2025 ALLOWING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. ?lN