it2025_00384 — Recovery of excess pension paid to a retired employee due to erroneous interpretation of rules can be recovered as held in the case of Union of India and others v. Rakesh Kumar [ 2001 Scc ( L&S) 707 ]. Errors and mistakes in fixation amount of pension cannot be perpetuated. In this case, the erroneous fixation of the Applicant was done by the department in the year 1-1-2006. Hence, the reduction of pension will take into effect only when the error is deducted i.e. from July, 2015

IT Rules

Recovery of excess pension paid to a retired employee due to erroneous interpretation of rules can be recovered as held in the case of Union of India and others v. Rakesh Kumar [ 2001 Scc ( L&S) 707 ]. Errors and mistakes in fixation amount of pension cannot be perpetuated. In this case, the erroneous fixation of the Applicant was done by the department in the year 1-1-2006. Hence, the reduction of pension will take into effect only when the error is deducted i.e. from July, 2015 — The chunk discusses the recovery of excess pension paid to an applicant due to incorrect implementation of the VI Pay Commission, and whether such recovery is permissible under law. It also mentions ... — Facts: The Applicant is a Junior Engineer (Civil) retired from MES, Garrison Engineer, Naval Base, Kochi. At the same time of retirement, his pension was fixed as ₹ 6,350 and Dearness Relief at the rate of ₹ 4,707 from 1-1-2005 as PPO (A/I). On implementation of VI Pay Commisssion, the Applicant was issued revised pension amounting to ₹ 10,639 from 1-1-2006. After nine years, on 8-7-2015 the Pension Disbursing Bank revised his pension as ₹ 7,093 from 1-1-2006. R-3, the Chief Manager, SBI, Tiruvananthapuram, started recovering excess pension paid to the Applicant at the rate of ₹ 7,000 from July, 2015 which is recovered in instalment. Even though the Applicant resisted the recovery referring the decision in the case of State of Punjab and others v. Rafiq Masih (Whitewasher) [ 2015 (4) SCC 334 ], an amount of ₹ 14, 553 was recovered from July, 2015. The Applicant states that this recovery is against the principles of natural justice and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The Applicant contends that the recovery from his pension was done after elapse of 6 years. This untimely recovery caused him severe prejudice as the income is the sole income to maintain his family. Hence, he filed this OA not to recover the amounts from pension based on its revision and to reimburse the recovered amount. He relies on the case of Rafiq Masih (supra). The Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 i.e. SBI states that his pension was wrongly fixed at the rate of ₹ 10,639 with effect from 1-1-2006. His eligible pension from 1-1-2006 is only ₹ 7,093. Thus the total excess payment made to him is ₹ 6,31,476 which is recovered from monthly pension as stated above. Departmental authorities R-1 and R-2, supports the view of the Bank. The Tribunal heard both sides. As per OM, pension of Pre-1-1-2006 pensioners is to be paid as noted in the judgment. "When existing pension in the OM includes merger of 50% of Dearness Relief with effect from 1-4-2004, the existing pension for the purpose of fitment weightage will be recalculated after excluding the merged Dearness Relief of 50% from the pension. The amount arrived at will be regarded as consolidated pension / family pension with effect from 1-1-2006". It is further said that "the pension of the Applicant was effected without excluding the merged Dearness Relief of 50% of the existing pension and hence revised Pension Payment Order was issued. Therefore, pension in terms of the implementation of the VI CPC granted to the Applicant with effect from 1-1-2006 is without excluding the 50% of Dearness Relief. Already he had availed of his pre-1-1-2006 pension which was corrected by Annexure A/4 Corrigendum / revised PPO which triggered recovery of the excess amount paid to him". The Applicant contends that the recovery from his pension is offending the principles of natural justice as no notice was given to him before the start of recovery that too after nearly 6 years from 1-1-2006. R-3 and R-4, the Bank Authorities are agents of the department and act according to the direction of the authorities to cut the pension and have no responsibility in this action. The question that arises is "whether the excess payment given to the Applicant as calculated and intimated as Annexure -3 (A-3) communication is recoverable from him or not℃" Pension is the only source of income to the Applicant to maintain his family. In the case of Rafiq Masih (supra) it was seen that recovery of excess payment from pensioners is impermissible in law. In the case of Apex Court judgment in Shyam Babu Verma and others v. Union of India and others [ 1994 (2) SCC 521 ], it was held that recovery on the basis of wrong fixation after 11 years was not just and proper as it would be inequitous and arbitrary.

IT Rules

Recovery of excess pension paid to a retired employee due to erroneous interpretation of rules can be recovered as held in the case of Union of India and others v. Rakesh Kumar [ 2001 Scc ( L&S) 707 ]. Errors and mistakes in fixation amount of pension cannot be perpetuated. In this case, the erroneous fixation of the Applicant was done by the department in the year 1-1-2006. Hence, the reduction of pension will take into effect only when the error is deducted i.e. from July, 2015 — The chunk discusses the recovery of excess pension paid to an applicant due to incorrect implementation of the VI Pay Commission, and whether such recovery is permissible under law. It also mentions ... — Facts: The Applicant is a Junior Engineer (Civil) retired from MES, Garrison Engineer, Naval Base, Kochi. At the same time of retirement, his pension was fixed as ₹ 6,350 and Dearness Relief at the rate of ₹ 4,707 from 1-1-2005 as PPO (A/I). On implementation of VI Pay Commisssion, the Applicant was issued revised pension amounting to ₹ 10,639 from 1-1-2006. After nine years, on 8-7-2015 the Pension Disbursing Bank revised his pension as ₹ 7,093 from 1-1-2006. R-3, the Chief Manager, SBI, Tiruvananthapuram, started recovering excess pension paid to the Applicant at the rate of ₹ 7,000 from July, 2015 which is recovered in instalment. Even though the Applicant resisted the recovery referring the decision in the case of State of Punjab and others v. Rafiq Masih (Whitewasher) [ 2015 (4) SCC 334 ], an amount of ₹ 14, 553 was recovered from July, 2015. The Applicant states that this recovery is against the principles of natural justice and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The Applicant contends that the recovery from his pension was done after elapse of 6 years. This untimely recovery caused him severe prejudice as the income is the sole income to maintain his family. Hence, he filed this OA not to recover the amounts from pension based on its revision and to reimburse the recovered amount. He relies on the case of Rafiq Masih (supra). The Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 i.e. SBI states that his pension was wrongly fixed at the rate of ₹ 10,639 with effect from 1-1-2006. His eligible pension from 1-1-2006 is only ₹ 7,093. Thus the total excess payment made to him is ₹ 6,31,476 which is recovered from monthly pension as stated above. Departmental authorities R-1 and R-2, supports the view of the Bank. The Tribunal heard both sides. As per OM, pension of Pre-1-1-2006 pensioners is to be paid as noted in the judgment. "When existing pension in the OM includes merger of 50% of Dearness Relief with effect from 1-4-2004, the existing pension for the purpose of fitment weightage will be recalculated after excluding the merged Dearness Relief of 50% from the pension. The amount arrived at will be regarded as consolidated pension / family pension with effect from 1-1-2006". It is further said that "the pension of the Applicant was effected without excluding the merged Dearness Relief of 50% of the existing pension and hence revised Pension Payment Order was issued. Therefore, pension in terms of the implementation of the VI CPC granted to the Applicant with effect from 1-1-2006 is without excluding the 50% of Dearness Relief. Already he had availed of his pre-1-1-2006 pension which was corrected by Annexure A/4 Corrigendum / revised PPO which triggered recovery of the excess amount paid to him". The Applicant contends that the recovery from his pension is offending the principles of natural justice as no notice was given to him before the start of recovery that too after nearly 6 years from 1-1-2006. R-3 and R-4, the Bank Authorities are agents of the department and act according to the direction of the authorities to cut the pension and have no responsibility in this action. The question that arises is "whether the excess payment given to the Applicant as calculated and intimated as Annexure -3 (A-3) communication is recoverable from him or not℃" Pension is the only source of income to the Applicant to maintain his family. In the case of Rafiq Masih (supra) it was seen that recovery of excess payment from pensioners is impermissible in law. In the case of Apex Court judgment in Shyam Babu Verma and others v. Union of India and others [ 1994 (2) SCC 521 ], it was held that recovery on the basis of wrong fixation after 11 years was not just and proper as it would be inequitous and arbitrary.

Original Rule Text

Original Rule Text