it2025_00776 — Respondents, Ministry of Finance, following the provisions under Rule 70 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 revising the pension of the seven Applicants and others are in order

Respondents, Ministry of Finance, following the provisions under Rule 70 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 revising the pension of the seven Applicants and others are in order — This chunk is a portion of a court order dismissing an Original Application (OA No. 219 of 2019) filed by seven retired Applicants against the Ministry of Finance. The Applicants had challenged the r... — Facts: There are seven retired Applicants in this OA who filed the case against recovery of excess payment by revising their PPOs under Section 19 of the AT Act. Applicants seek quashing of the order of re-fixation of the pay of the Applicants. Notice was issued at A-1 to A-20. Applicants prays to revise the PPO to the position as on December, 2018 and revision now made is illegal and impermissible. As per authorized provisions of Rules 8 and 9 of and provisions of Pension Rule 70, such revision can be made only on account of detection of clerical error and no revision to the disadvantage of pensioner can be made. Clerical error, if any, revision is permissible with the approval of Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms within two years. In the present case, undisputedly the decision taken for revision of pension was after a period of two years. The error reported states that the grant of wrongful pay in PB-3 with Grade Pay ₹ 6,600 to Applicants was liable to be withdrawn was made known to the Applicants. The decision of the Applicants challenging such decision fails as per order passed by Tribunal. Applicants at the time of their retirement know that they were not entitled to the last pay drawn. Hence departmental authorities corrected the wrong fixation of the pay of the Applicants under Rule 70 (1). Revision took place within the time-limit as stipulated in the said Rule. Under provision of Rule 70 (2), Applicants were served with notices to refund the excess payment due to wrong fixation and directed the Applicants to refund the excess payment. The Applicants failed to refund. Hence Rule 70 (2) for the purpose of sub-rule (1) of the retired Government servant to refund the excess payment due to wrong pay and pension fixation. Applicants failed to do so. Hence Respondents in the light of provision of Rule 70 (3) ordered recovery of excess payment. Applicants having failed to do so, Respondents have followed Rule 70 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 in revision of pension of the Applicants. In view of the above, the two OAs namely, O.A. No. 859 of 2016, decided on 14-3-2017 by CAT Ernakulam Bench and Order, dated 16-2-2015 passed by CAT PB in the case of R.K. Bhatnagar (Rtd.) and others v. Union of India do not come to the rescue of the Applicants in this case. Arguments of the Applicants that Respondents arbitrarily in violation of Pension Rules issued PPO is not tenable. Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. M.V. Mohanan Nair [ 2020 (5) SCC 421 ], states that there is nothing to show that MACP Scheme is arbitrary or unjust warranting interference which was accepted by Government. Interference of the said decision will cause serious impact on the public exchequer. As per the decision as noted above, wrongful grant of benefits and recovery of excess payment was upheld.