it2025_00380 — Recovery of excess family pension reported to be recovered from the Applicant after 5 years, i.e. beyond the period of limit prescribed for recovery is impermissible as per the decision of Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and others v. Rafiq Masih (Whitewasher), etc. [ 2015 (4) SCC 334 ]. Hence the Respondents herein namely, General Manager, Eastern Railway was directed to refund the amount of recovery already made from the family pension of the Applicant within one month from the date

Recovery of excess family pension reported to be recovered from the Applicant after 5 years, i.e. beyond the period of limit prescribed for recovery is impermissible as per the decision of Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and others v. Rafiq Masih (Whitewasher), etc. [ 2015 (4) SCC 334 ]. Hence the Respondents herein namely, General Manager, Eastern Railway was directed to refund the amount of recovery already made from the family pension of the Applicant within one month from the date of receipt of this order — This chunk pertains to an order number 350/01314 of 2016 regarding the recovery of excess family pension from the Applicant, which is considered impermissible as per the decision in the Apex Court ca... — Facts: The Applicant herein is the wife of (Late) Prafulla Kumar who worked in Eastern Railway as Driver. The Applicant was granted family pension of ₹ 4,485 on the death of her husband. That amount was sought to be reduced and excess amount paid is to be recovered in easy instalments. Her representation in reduction of family pension and recovery of excess amount was not replied. Hence she filed this OA to set aside the impugned recovery Order, dated 30-1-2016 without giving her any opportunity to resist the recovery and enhance her family pension as per benefit of 5th, 6th and 7th CPC and order not to harass her by the impugned recovery orders. Applicant relied on the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra) wherein it was held that “recovery of excess payments discovered after 5 years would be iniquitous and arbitrary and as such violative of Article 14 of the Constitution”. Tribunal heard both sides and recounted the Apex Court judgment in Rafiq Masih (supra). In that case, in four cases, recovery of excess amount paid cannot be recovered after 5 years of granting the pension. Para. 12 of the judgment indicating the cases where recovery is impermissible after an elapse of 5 years are noted. Held:“Admittedly, family pension has been reduced from 1-1-1996 and the recovery of alleged excess amount is also from 1-1-1996 which is much beyond the period of limit prescribed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih (supra). Accordingly, the action of the Respondents in effecting recovery from family pension of the Applicant is not in accordance with the law as quoted above, therefore, the Respondents are directed to refund the amount of recovery effect from the family pension of the Applicant within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order”. OA is thus disposed of. No costs. [ Lakshmi Rani Sarkar v. General Manager, Eastern Railway, Kolkata and others, 3/2019, nitisnewS 91, (Calcutta) date of judgment 16-5-2018. ]