ups_00513 — It is impermissible to recover excess payment from pensioner as held in the case of State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masiah (White washer), [ 2015 (4) SCC 334 ]. Hence recovery of alleged excess amount paid to the Applicant herein, a Railway pensioner, is not permissible. The abovesaid ruling of the Apex Court in Rafiq Masiah case is binding under Article 141 of the Constitution

It is impermissible to recover excess payment from pensioner as held in the case of State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masiah (White washer), [ 2015 (4) SCC 334 ]. Hence recovery of alleged excess amount paid to the Applicant herein, a Railway pensioner, is not permissible. The abovesaid ruling of the Apex Court in Rafiq Masiah case is binding under Article 141 of the Constitution — This chunk pertains to a case where a retired railway employee, who was entitled to a pension of INR 5,585 after the revision of pay scales under the 6th Central Pay Commission (CPC), received an exc... — Facts: Facts: The Applicant retired as Grade I, Fitter from South-East Central Railways on 30-9-2004. At that time, he was drawing pay in the pay scale of ₹ 4,500-7,000 and accordingly Pension Payment Order (PP O) was issued. In 6th CPC the pay of Grade I Fitter was revised as ₹ 11,170. Hence the Applicant is entitled to get pension of ₹ 5,585. The Applicant further states that he is entitled for full pension though he had total service of 32 years, 7 months and 12 days. From January, 2016, he received lesser pension from pension disbursing bank. When the matter was enquired into, it was stated that he was paid an excess amount of ₹ 4,60,506 which would be recovered in 150 instalments at the rate of ₹ 3,070 and ₹ 6 had already been recovered. Hence he filed this OA challenging the recovery and a direction to Financial Advisor and Chief Accounts Officer (Pension), South Central Railway to revise his pension to ₹ 5,585 with effect from 1-1-2006 and grant other related reliefs. The Tribunal heard both sides. It is not disputed that the Applicant is entitled to revise the basic pension of ₹ 5,585 with effect from 1-1-2006 which was given effect to as per Railways version. However, the bank authorities reduced the pension for an overpayment of ₹ 2,013 per month on account of a mistake committed by the pension disbursing bank. As his pension after 1-1-2006 had to be fixed by multiplying the existing pension with factor of 1.5067, the mistake committed by the bank by paying excess amount of pension is recovered as per instruction of Reserve Bank of India. Chief Manager, State Bank of Travancore, R-5 and Branch Manager, State Bank of Travancore, R-6 started the recovery from the pension of the Applicant at the rate of ₹ 3,020 and the recovery will continue for 150 instalments. It is a settled law that no recovery is permissible from pension as laid down in Masiah's case (supra). The law laid down by Apex Court is binding within the Territory of India. Reserve Bank of India cannot override the law of Apex Court. Hence the Respondents - R-5 and R-6 contentions will not hold water. Pension granting authorities fixed the pension amount of the Applicant correctly in VI CPC. The mistake is committed by bank authorities, R-5 and R-6 by revising the pension of the Applicant who retired after 1-4-2004 by multiplying factor of 2.56 instead of 1.5067 as the DA was already merged with Basic Pay. This is due to lack of vigilance of R-5 and R-6. Instructions issued by RBI at Annexures R-5

(a) and R-5

(b) is unjust. Instruction issued in the case of the Applicant who survive on his pension at the fag end of his life after retirement is inequitable.