ups_01055 — Applicant herein after taking voluntary retirement from Railways while working as a Class III staff joined RITES Ltd. Even though pension was paid by Railways with Dearness Pay, the RITES also paid his pay with Dearness Allowance in the minimum of the pay scales in which he joined which payment of RITES is not due to any false information given by the Applicant. Hence the excess DP paid by Railways cannot be recovered

UPS

Applicant herein after taking voluntary retirement from Railways while working as a Class III staff joined RITES Ltd. Even though pension was paid by Railways with Dearness Pay, the RITES also paid his pay with Dearness Allowance in the minimum of the pay scales in which he joined which payment of RITES is not due to any false information given by the Applicant. Hence the excess DP paid by Railways cannot be recovered — This chunk pertains to a dispute over an excess Dearness Pay (DP) paid by Railways to an applicant who retired as a Class III staff but re-joined RITES Ltd., while receiving pension from Central Rail... — Facts : Applicant took voluntary retirement on 3-10-2010 while working as Senior Section Engineer (W) (Group 'C') and joined RITES Ltd., an enterprise of Government of India on 3-10-2006 (he was earlier on deputation from Railways). He was getting pay of ₹ 15,600-39,100 plus Grade Pay of ₹ 6,000 under Sixth Pay Commission with effect from 1-1-2006. His pension from Central Railways PPO No. is noted in the judgment. It is stated that he submitted his re-employment details and salary drawn to the Bank of Maharashtra, RAE Branch, Navi Mumbai. RITES Ltd. informed the Bank that the Applicant is not entitled for Dearness Relief (DR) since he was employed with it (due to getting DR from his pension from Railways). Hence the Bank worked out an over-payment of ₹ 7,50,713 vide Office Letter, dated 4-9-2017 and proposed to reduce pension of the Applicant from ₹ 28,731 to ₹ 19,574. The contents of the letter, dated 4-9-2017 is reproduced. In spite of the fact that he represented to Bank regarding reduction of his pension from Railways, no action was taken and the Bank acted as per Instructions of Secretary, Ministry of Railways, R-1 herein. On the above facts, this OA is filed stating that the reduction of DA is in violation of Railways Pension Rules, 1993 and hence liable to be set aside on various grounds as brought out in the judgment. Applicant contends that reduction of DA is against the orders of Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and others v. Rafiq Masih (Whitewasher) [ 2014 (8) SCC 883 ]. Respondents justified their stand for non-payment of DR as he was getting DR from the RITES on re-employment. Tribunal heard both sides. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra) had given judgment wherein recoveries for excess payment is not permissible for Group III and IV employees in five items. Those five items
(i) to
(v) in this connection are reproduced for clarity. Respondents state that by OM, dated 2-7-1999, the case of the reduction of DP is permissible and that it is the responsibility of the Applicant to have obtained certificate from his new employer and submitted with Respondents herein so that he could not have been awarded DR on the pension on his re-employment where his pay is not fixed at the minimum of pay scale as per Para. 3
(a) of the OM, dated 2-7-1999. The OM, dated 2-7-1999 on the subject of "Recommendation of the Fifth Central Pay Commission - Payment of Dearness Relief to the re-employed pensioners and employed family pensioners - Decision Regarding" is reproduced. On reading of the OM, the Counsel of the Respondents stated that it was the responsibility of Applicant or the employer to have submitted the necessary certificate with the Respondents which submission by Respondents is without any merits as the OM, dated 2-7-1999 clearly states in Para. 4 (II)
(a) that in case of employment of pensioner, the DA will be admissible to such of those re-employed pensioners who satisfy the condition referred to in Para. 3
(a) of the OM, i.e. on re-employment in case the pay is fixed at the minimum of pay scale of the post in which they are re-employed, in all such cases, the employer is required to issue the certificate. As per this OM, there is no direction either to the re-employed family pensioner or to the new employer to issue certificate in case on re-employment, the pay is not fixed at the minimum of the scale of the post in which he is re-employed. An examination of the Memorandum, dated 2-7-1999 is elaborately discussed in the judgment.

UPS

Applicant herein after taking voluntary retirement from Railways while working as a Class III staff joined RITES Ltd. Even though pension was paid by Railways with Dearness Pay, the RITES also paid his pay with Dearness Allowance in the minimum of the pay scales in which he joined which payment of RITES is not due to any false information given by the Applicant. Hence the excess DP paid by Railways cannot be recovered — This chunk pertains to a dispute over an excess Dearness Pay (DP) paid by Railways to an applicant who retired as a Class III staff but re-joined RITES Ltd., while receiving pension from Central Rail... — Facts : Applicant took voluntary retirement on 3-10-2010 while working as Senior Section Engineer (W) (Group 'C') and joined RITES Ltd., an enterprise of Government of India on 3-10-2006 (he was earlier on deputation from Railways). He was getting pay of ₹ 15,600-39,100 plus Grade Pay of ₹ 6,000 under Sixth Pay Commission with effect from 1-1-2006. His pension from Central Railways PPO No. is noted in the judgment. It is stated that he submitted his re-employment details and salary drawn to the Bank of Maharashtra, RAE Branch, Navi Mumbai. RITES Ltd. informed the Bank that the Applicant is not entitled for Dearness Relief (DR) since he was employed with it (due to getting DR from his pension from Railways). Hence the Bank worked out an over-payment of ₹ 7,50,713 vide Office Letter, dated 4-9-2017 and proposed to reduce pension of the Applicant from ₹ 28,731 to ₹ 19,574. The contents of the letter, dated 4-9-2017 is reproduced. In spite of the fact that he represented to Bank regarding reduction of his pension from Railways, no action was taken and the Bank acted as per Instructions of Secretary, Ministry of Railways, R-1 herein. On the above facts, this OA is filed stating that the reduction of DA is in violation of Railways Pension Rules, 1993 and hence liable to be set aside on various grounds as brought out in the judgment. Applicant contends that reduction of DA is against the orders of Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and others v. Rafiq Masih (Whitewasher) [ 2014 (8) SCC 883 ]. Respondents justified their stand for non-payment of DR as he was getting DR from the RITES on re-employment. Tribunal heard both sides. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra) had given judgment wherein recoveries for excess payment is not permissible for Group III and IV employees in five items. Those five items
(i) to
(v) in this connection are reproduced for clarity. Respondents state that by OM, dated 2-7-1999, the case of the reduction of DP is permissible and that it is the responsibility of the Applicant to have obtained certificate from his new employer and submitted with Respondents herein so that he could not have been awarded DR on the pension on his re-employment where his pay is not fixed at the minimum of pay scale as per Para. 3
(a) of the OM, dated 2-7-1999. The OM, dated 2-7-1999 on the subject of "Recommendation of the Fifth Central Pay Commission - Payment of Dearness Relief to the re-employed pensioners and employed family pensioners - Decision Regarding" is reproduced. On reading of the OM, the Counsel of the Respondents stated that it was the responsibility of Applicant or the employer to have submitted the necessary certificate with the Respondents which submission by Respondents is without any merits as the OM, dated 2-7-1999 clearly states in Para. 4 (II)
(a) that in case of employment of pensioner, the DA will be admissible to such of those re-employed pensioners who satisfy the condition referred to in Para. 3
(a) of the OM, i.e. on re-employment in case the pay is fixed at the minimum of pay scale of the post in which they are re-employed, in all such cases, the employer is required to issue the certificate. As per this OM, there is no direction either to the re-employed family pensioner or to the new employer to issue certificate in case on re-employment, the pay is not fixed at the minimum of the scale of the post in which he is re-employed. An examination of the Memorandum, dated 2-7-1999 is elaborately discussed in the judgment.

Original Rule Text

Original Rule Text