ups_00441 — Very belated recovery of excess payment from pension of a retired employee is not permissible which is the view taken in the case of 'State of Punjab and others v. Rafiq Masih in Civil Appeal No. 11527 of 2014, dated 18-12-2014'. Hence recovery from the pension of the Applicant on the ground of wrong fixation of pension done 27 years after his retirement is incorrect and the amount, if any recovered should be returned to the Applicant with interest on fixed deposits of Bank

UPS

Very belated recovery of excess payment from pension of a retired employee is not permissible which is the view taken in the case of 'State of Punjab and others v. Rafiq Masih in Civil Appeal No. 11527 of 2014, dated 18-12-2014'. Hence recovery from the pension of the Applicant on the ground of wrong fixation of pension done 27 years after his retirement is incorrect and the amount, if any recovered should be returned to the Applicant with interest on fixed deposits of Bank — This chunk pertains to an OA (Original Application) No. 433 of 2014, which challenges the recovery of excess pension payment made to a retired Master Craftsman (Electrical) named Sunil Kumar Chatterj... — Facts: The Applicant herein who was a Master Craftsman (Electrical) retired on 30-4-1987 on superannuation while he was in the grade of ₹ 1,600-2,600 / ₹ 5,000-8,000. The PPO in Sixth CPC was issued on 12-12-2013 with revised pension of ₹ 6,750 with effect from 1-1-2006 as per Sixth CPC. The PPO was revised to show his pension in Sixth CPC as ₹ 5,650 with effect from 1-1-2006 which refixation was done behind the back of the Applicant as no prior information was given to him so also a copy of the revised PPO to him. Due to refixation of his pension reducing it from ₹ 6,750 to ₹ 5,650, the recovery of the excess payment of ₹ 1,74,898 was ordered and the bank authorities were informed on 2-6-2014. The Applicant came to know that recovery of ₹ 4,000 p.m. has been done by Bank in the month of May, 2014 for the period from 1-1-2006 to 30-4-2014 from bank authorities. The Applicant objected to reduction of pension and recovery of the same by the bank authorities when on 29-6-2014 a copy of the impugned order of recovery issued by the authorities was given to him and the recovery continued. The higher payment of pension was detected by authorities on 12-12-2013, i.e. after elapse of 8 years on the basis of PPO issued by Competent Authority. Hence he filed this OA to quash the impugned order, dated 20-5-2014 and to refund the recovered amount with 21% interest per annum from May, 2014 till the date of payment. It appears that overpayment of his pension was detected on 12-12-2013 i.e. after 8 years on the basis of PPO issued on 28-9-2010 by the Competent Authority. The Respondents explained their stand. The Applicant also filed a rejoinder questioning the validity of the reply on various grounds including laches. The Tribunal examined the issue and the statements of both sides. The case of the Applicant is fully covered by the earlier judgment in the case of State of Punjab and others v. Rafiq Masih in Civil Appeal No. 11527 of 2014, dated 18-12-2014. The Applicant prays for a sympathetic consideration of his case due to his old age close to 90 years. The Applicant also relies on six other judgments of Apex Court. The Tribunal felt that there is no delay in filing this OA and hence not barred by limitation as the cause of action arose in May, 2014 and he came to know of recovery in June, 2014. As there were similar cases disposed of by the Tribunal earlier, the Tribunal felt that it should be heard by a larger Bench. The three-Judge Bench concluded the case after hearing both sides on 8-7-2014 and held that it is not necessary to refer the case to the larger Bench and the present Bench can pass suitable order after hearing both sides. The judgment of Rafiq Masih (supra) is at variance with the judgment of Chandi Prasad and others v. State of Uttarakhand and others [ 2012 (8) supp. 7
(vii) SCC 417 ]. The variation between these two judgments is reproduced vide Para. 12.

UPS

Very belated recovery of excess payment from pension of a retired employee is not permissible which is the view taken in the case of 'State of Punjab and others v. Rafiq Masih in Civil Appeal No. 11527 of 2014, dated 18-12-2014'. Hence recovery from the pension of the Applicant on the ground of wrong fixation of pension done 27 years after his retirement is incorrect and the amount, if any recovered should be returned to the Applicant with interest on fixed deposits of Bank — This chunk pertains to an OA (Original Application) No. 433 of 2014, which challenges the recovery of excess pension payment made to a retired Master Craftsman (Electrical) named Sunil Kumar Chatterj... — Facts: The Applicant herein who was a Master Craftsman (Electrical) retired on 30-4-1987 on superannuation while he was in the grade of ₹ 1,600-2,600 / ₹ 5,000-8,000. The PPO in Sixth CPC was issued on 12-12-2013 with revised pension of ₹ 6,750 with effect from 1-1-2006 as per Sixth CPC. The PPO was revised to show his pension in Sixth CPC as ₹ 5,650 with effect from 1-1-2006 which refixation was done behind the back of the Applicant as no prior information was given to him so also a copy of the revised PPO to him. Due to refixation of his pension reducing it from ₹ 6,750 to ₹ 5,650, the recovery of the excess payment of ₹ 1,74,898 was ordered and the bank authorities were informed on 2-6-2014. The Applicant came to know that recovery of ₹ 4,000 p.m. has been done by Bank in the month of May, 2014 for the period from 1-1-2006 to 30-4-2014 from bank authorities. The Applicant objected to reduction of pension and recovery of the same by the bank authorities when on 29-6-2014 a copy of the impugned order of recovery issued by the authorities was given to him and the recovery continued. The higher payment of pension was detected by authorities on 12-12-2013, i.e. after elapse of 8 years on the basis of PPO issued by Competent Authority. Hence he filed this OA to quash the impugned order, dated 20-5-2014 and to refund the recovered amount with 21% interest per annum from May, 2014 till the date of payment. It appears that overpayment of his pension was detected on 12-12-2013 i.e. after 8 years on the basis of PPO issued on 28-9-2010 by the Competent Authority. The Respondents explained their stand. The Applicant also filed a rejoinder questioning the validity of the reply on various grounds including laches. The Tribunal examined the issue and the statements of both sides. The case of the Applicant is fully covered by the earlier judgment in the case of State of Punjab and others v. Rafiq Masih in Civil Appeal No. 11527 of 2014, dated 18-12-2014. The Applicant prays for a sympathetic consideration of his case due to his old age close to 90 years. The Applicant also relies on six other judgments of Apex Court. The Tribunal felt that there is no delay in filing this OA and hence not barred by limitation as the cause of action arose in May, 2014 and he came to know of recovery in June, 2014. As there were similar cases disposed of by the Tribunal earlier, the Tribunal felt that it should be heard by a larger Bench. The three-Judge Bench concluded the case after hearing both sides on 8-7-2014 and held that it is not necessary to refer the case to the larger Bench and the present Bench can pass suitable order after hearing both sides. The judgment of Rafiq Masih (supra) is at variance with the judgment of Chandi Prasad and others v. State of Uttarakhand and others [ 2012 (8) supp. 7
(vii) SCC 417 ]. The variation between these two judgments is reproduced vide Para. 12.

Original Rule Text

Original Rule Text