ups_00514 — In the case of State of Punjab and others v. Rafiq Masih (Whitewasher), etc. [ 2014 (8) SCC 883 ], it was said that recovery of any excess amount made to a pensioner is not permissible. Rule 70 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 which deals with "Revision of Pension after Authorization" contends that it is not permissible to recover or revise the pension to the disadvantage of the pensioner. Hence, revised pension payment issued to the Applicant herein, who retired as Chargeman (Technical) and worked

UPS

In the case of State of Punjab and others v. Rafiq Masih (Whitewasher), etc. [ 2014 (8) SCC 883 ], it was said that recovery of any excess amount made to a pensioner is not permissible. Rule 70 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 which deals with "Revision of Pension after Authorization" contends that it is not permissible to recover or revise the pension to the disadvantage of the pensioner. Hence, revised pension payment issued to the Applicant herein, who retired as Chargeman (Technical) and worked under General Manager, Ordnance Factory (R. No. 2 herein) on 1-4-2006 fixing his Pay Band of₹ 9,300-34,800 with Grade Pay of ₹ 4,200 is illegal even if the Applicant received one promotion before posted as Master Craftsman — This chunk is from an original application (OA No. 180 / 00326 of 2015) challenging a pension reduction order issued to a retired employee named the Applicant, who served as Chargeman (Technical) in ... — Facts:The Applicant herein, retired as Chargeman (Technical) while working in Ordnance Factory, Chanda, Maharashtra under General Manager, Ordnance Factory (R. No. 2 herein) on 31-10-2011. The Applicant joined the service as Labourer "B" promoted as Examiner and was later placed as Master Craftsman in March, 2005. Thereafter, he was promoted as Chargeman (Technical) with effect from 1-4-2006. At the time of his retirement, he was in the pay scale of ₹ 9,300-34,800 with Grade Pay of ₹ 4,600. Accordingly, he was getting a monthly pension of ₹ 9,475. By A-7 Communication, his monthly pension was reduced as ₹ 8,905 and the Respondents asked him to re-credit the excess pension of ₹ 84, 235 paid to him. Aggrieved by that communication (A-7), he filed this OA for quashing the relevant Annexures at A-4, A-5, A-7 and A-10 declaring that he is entitled to a monthly pension of ₹ 9,475 with effect from 1-11-2011 and for refunding the amount already recovered by Chief Manager, State Bank of India (R. No. 4 herein) with interest of 12 per cent. The Respondents clarified that such persons who have not been placed as Master Craftsman before 1-1-2006 from Highly Skilled, Grade II to High Skilled, Grade I are not eligible for the 3rd MACP. Hence, the recovery was made. It is further clarified that placement of Highly Skilled Grade as that of Master Craftsman prior to 1-1-2006 shall be treated as one promotion under MACP benefits. Hence the pay of the Applicant was re-fixed with Grade Pay of ₹ 4,200. Hence recovery of excess amount paid to him was recovered on grant of Grade Pay of ₹ 4,600. The Applicant was informed which is impugned in this OA. In the rejoinder refuting the contentions of the Respondent, the Applicant states that, as per Rule 70 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, the pension amount cannot be reduced to the disadvantage of the Applicant after the lapse of three years. In the light of the decision in the case of Punjab and others v. Rafiq Masih (Whitewasher), etc. [ 2014 (8) SCC 883 ],the Respondents are not entitled to recover any excess amount made to the pensioner. The main ground for filing this OA is, that the Applicant was not served with notice before reducing pension and recovery. He also contended that as per Rule 70 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, recovery or revise his pension to his disadvantage after 2 years of his retirement is not permissible. Rule 70 — “Revision of pension after Authorization” is reproduced for clarity. The Respondents contravened the said Rule 70 and justified their action. Both sides argued to sustain their case. Respondent referred to the case of Rafiq Masih (supra) and said that referring it has to be treated as per incuriam. It was held:

UPS

In the case of State of Punjab and others v. Rafiq Masih (Whitewasher), etc. [ 2014 (8) SCC 883 ], it was said that recovery of any excess amount made to a pensioner is not permissible. Rule 70 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 which deals with "Revision of Pension after Authorization" contends that it is not permissible to recover or revise the pension to the disadvantage of the pensioner. Hence, revised pension payment issued to the Applicant herein, who retired as Chargeman (Technical) and worked under General Manager, Ordnance Factory (R. No. 2 herein) on 1-4-2006 fixing his Pay Band of₹ 9,300-34,800 with Grade Pay of ₹ 4,200 is illegal even if the Applicant received one promotion before posted as Master Craftsman — This chunk is from an original application (OA No. 180 / 00326 of 2015) challenging a pension reduction order issued to a retired employee named the Applicant, who served as Chargeman (Technical) in ... — Facts:The Applicant herein, retired as Chargeman (Technical) while working in Ordnance Factory, Chanda, Maharashtra under General Manager, Ordnance Factory (R. No. 2 herein) on 31-10-2011. The Applicant joined the service as Labourer "B" promoted as Examiner and was later placed as Master Craftsman in March, 2005. Thereafter, he was promoted as Chargeman (Technical) with effect from 1-4-2006. At the time of his retirement, he was in the pay scale of ₹ 9,300-34,800 with Grade Pay of ₹ 4,600. Accordingly, he was getting a monthly pension of ₹ 9,475. By A-7 Communication, his monthly pension was reduced as ₹ 8,905 and the Respondents asked him to re-credit the excess pension of ₹ 84, 235 paid to him. Aggrieved by that communication (A-7), he filed this OA for quashing the relevant Annexures at A-4, A-5, A-7 and A-10 declaring that he is entitled to a monthly pension of ₹ 9,475 with effect from 1-11-2011 and for refunding the amount already recovered by Chief Manager, State Bank of India (R. No. 4 herein) with interest of 12 per cent. The Respondents clarified that such persons who have not been placed as Master Craftsman before 1-1-2006 from Highly Skilled, Grade II to High Skilled, Grade I are not eligible for the 3rd MACP. Hence, the recovery was made. It is further clarified that placement of Highly Skilled Grade as that of Master Craftsman prior to 1-1-2006 shall be treated as one promotion under MACP benefits. Hence the pay of the Applicant was re-fixed with Grade Pay of ₹ 4,200. Hence recovery of excess amount paid to him was recovered on grant of Grade Pay of ₹ 4,600. The Applicant was informed which is impugned in this OA. In the rejoinder refuting the contentions of the Respondent, the Applicant states that, as per Rule 70 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, the pension amount cannot be reduced to the disadvantage of the Applicant after the lapse of three years. In the light of the decision in the case of Punjab and others v. Rafiq Masih (Whitewasher), etc. [ 2014 (8) SCC 883 ],the Respondents are not entitled to recover any excess amount made to the pensioner. The main ground for filing this OA is, that the Applicant was not served with notice before reducing pension and recovery. He also contended that as per Rule 70 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, recovery or revise his pension to his disadvantage after 2 years of his retirement is not permissible. Rule 70 — “Revision of pension after Authorization” is reproduced for clarity. The Respondents contravened the said Rule 70 and justified their action. Both sides argued to sustain their case. Respondent referred to the case of Rafiq Masih (supra) and said that referring it has to be treated as per incuriam. It was held:

Original Rule Text

Original Rule Text