dofp2024_00806 — Applicant, a retired pensioner of Calcutta Telephones, was getting pension of ₹ 21,263 from United Bank of India which was reduced to ₹ 13,469 and a recovery of ₹ 2,59,550 was ordered without reporting any fault of the pensioner which reduction and recovery from the pension would disturb the pensioner of his monthly budget. Unexplained recovery, is unjust, iniquitous, harsh and arbitrary. Hence, such a recovery is impermissible

DoFP

Applicant, a retired pensioner of Calcutta Telephones, was getting pension of ₹ 21,263 from United Bank of India which was reduced to ₹ 13,469 and a recovery of ₹ 2,59,550 was ordered without reporting any fault of the pensioner which reduction and recovery from the pension would disturb the pensioner of his monthly budget. Unexplained recovery, is unjust, iniquitous, harsh and arbitrary. Hence, such a recovery is impermissible — The chunk is about a family pensioner who was directed to repay an excess amount of ₹ 85,043 from his pension without any fault on his part, despite resisting the recovery. This led him to file an Or... — Facts :A family pensioner has preferred this OA aggrieved by the reduction and monthly recovery of his payable pension. Hence he filed this OA with a direction not to recover any amount from his payable pension and to return the recovered amount from his pension. Pensioner's wife is a Class III employee of Calcutta Telephones, who died while in harness. Applicant / family pensioner was paid Dearness Relief as per FPPO (A/1). He got enhanced pension in 6th Pay Commission plus Dearness Relief till 2014 and normal pension thereafter. All of a sudden, without any notice he was directed by R-3, Principal Controller of Communication and Accounts, Calcutta Telephones District, to repay the excess amount paid to him of ₹ 85,043 when there was no fault on the Applicant. Applicant even though resisted the recovery from pension, the amount of ₹ 85,043 was deducted in instalment of ₹ 4,489 per month from the meagre family pension, lastly revised family pension being ₹ 13,469. Hence Applicant filed this OA praying that the Respondent bank's illegal letter/ notice of 15-9-2017 (A/4) be quashed and illegal recovery amount returned to the Applicant in view of Apex Court directions in various earlier cases as there was no fault on the part of the Applicant causing recovery from pension. It is enough if the final observation and direction of the Tribunal is noted in this case. The prior judgment of the State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (Whitewasher and others) reported in 2015(4) SCC 334 is taken into consideration by the Tribunal. Dealing with the issue of recovery, the said case observed vide Para. 10 of the judgment which is reproduced. It is observed “Order passed in given situation reportedly even in excess of power vested in this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, will disclose the parameter of the realm of the 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 the Article 14 of the Constitution of India”.

DoFP

Applicant, a retired pensioner of Calcutta Telephones, was getting pension of ₹ 21,263 from United Bank of India which was reduced to ₹ 13,469 and a recovery of ₹ 2,59,550 was ordered without reporting any fault of the pensioner which reduction and recovery from the pension would disturb the pensioner of his monthly budget. Unexplained recovery, is unjust, iniquitous, harsh and arbitrary. Hence, such a recovery is impermissible — The chunk is about a family pensioner who was directed to repay an excess amount of ₹ 85,043 from his pension without any fault on his part, despite resisting the recovery. This led him to file an Or... — Facts :A family pensioner has preferred this OA aggrieved by the reduction and monthly recovery of his payable pension. Hence he filed this OA with a direction not to recover any amount from his payable pension and to return the recovered amount from his pension. Pensioner's wife is a Class III employee of Calcutta Telephones, who died while in harness. Applicant / family pensioner was paid Dearness Relief as per FPPO (A/1). He got enhanced pension in 6th Pay Commission plus Dearness Relief till 2014 and normal pension thereafter. All of a sudden, without any notice he was directed by R-3, Principal Controller of Communication and Accounts, Calcutta Telephones District, to repay the excess amount paid to him of ₹ 85,043 when there was no fault on the Applicant. Applicant even though resisted the recovery from pension, the amount of ₹ 85,043 was deducted in instalment of ₹ 4,489 per month from the meagre family pension, lastly revised family pension being ₹ 13,469. Hence Applicant filed this OA praying that the Respondent bank's illegal letter/ notice of 15-9-2017 (A/4) be quashed and illegal recovery amount returned to the Applicant in view of Apex Court directions in various earlier cases as there was no fault on the part of the Applicant causing recovery from pension. It is enough if the final observation and direction of the Tribunal is noted in this case. The prior judgment of the State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (Whitewasher and others) reported in 2015(4) SCC 334 is taken into consideration by the Tribunal. Dealing with the issue of recovery, the said case observed vide Para. 10 of the judgment which is reproduced. It is observed “Order passed in given situation reportedly even in excess of power vested in this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, will disclose the parameter of the realm of the 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 the Article 14 of the Constitution of India”.

Original Rule Text

Original Rule Text