AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Shri Pashupati Nath Pandey, counsel for the applicant, Shri Vinod Kumar Pandey, counsel for the official respondents and Shri J.K. Mishra, counsel for the respondent No. 3 are present and heard.
The applicant has filed this O.A. against the order dated 18.07.2025 by which the respondent No. 2 and 4 had directed for recovery of the alleged excess payment made from 28.07.2016 to 30.06.2024.
As per pleadings in the O.A., Counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is widow of Late Ram Upadhayay who was an employee of Ordnance Parachute Factory, Kanpur. Late Ram Upadhayay was superannuated on 31.01.2001 and died on 27.07.2016. After the death of deceased employee, the family pension was released by respondent No. 2 in favour of applicant. The applicant’s family pension was revised according to 7th Pay Commission and new PPO was issued in her favour. Counsel for the applicant submitted that with effect from June, 2025, the pension of applicant, which had been crediting in Punjab National Bank, Shashtri Nagar, Kanpur, was reduced from Rs.47,277/- to Rs.19,939/-. On inquiry, the bank has no answer. Thereafter, the applicant made a complaint dated 02.07.2025 regarding reduced pension to respondent No. 2. However, vide impugned order dated 18.07.2025, the respondent No. 2 intimated the applicant that according to E.P.P.O. No. 401200000032-0101, the applicant was liable for pension of Rs.16,080/- but, the bank was making payment of Rs.26,800/-. It has been said that in the impugned order that family pension has been revised to Rs.16,080/-according to the Sparsh P.P.O. dated 20.05.2025. It was further ordered that with effect from 01.07.2024 to 30.05.2025 the Applicant has been over paid Rs. 1,43,608/- as such Rs. 9,970/- has been deducted from the pension of month June, 2025 and the remaining amount of overpaid amount out of Rs. 1,43,608/- shall be recovered in following months. It has been further order that regarding over payment with effect from 28.07.2016 to 30.06.2024 correspondence with the payee bank is being done and on receiving of the recovery certificate from the bank the same shall be recovered from the applicant. Counsel for the applicant submitted that the impugned order is arbitrary, illegal and non-speaking as it does not disclose any error or fault on the part of applicant.
The respondents No. 1 and 2 have filed the counter affidavit stating therein that the normal rate of family pension @Rs. 16080/- p.m. w.e.f. 27.07.2016 was payable. But the CPPC/Bank has erroneously paid at enhanced rate of FP i.e. Rs enhanced rate 26800/- p.m. Though the Family pensioner i.e. applicant was never entitled to receive the enhanced rate of family pension as per Rule 50 (2) (a) (iii) of CCS Pension Rule 2021. As per Rule the applicant was entitled for normal rate of family pension from the date of death of her husband. It is the responsibility of the concerned PDA to pay the correct rate of pension as per the PPO and the existing Govt. Rules and circulars notified time to time. The correct rate of family pension of the applicant is @ Rs. 16080/- p.m. w.e.f. 27.07.2016 but due to error of the Bank/PDA, overpayment of Rs. 10,64,448/-(Rs. Ten Lakhs Sixty Four Thousand Four Hundred and Forty Eight) had been paid from 27.07.2016 to 31.07.2023 to the family pensioner after death of her husband. It is further submitted that on migration of family pensioner's data to SPARSH system, this office i.e. PCDA (Pensions) Prayagraj has become the Pension Disbursement Agency itself. Initially the pension data was migrated in Sparsh "As Is case" i.e. the pension is being paid at the same rate as the Bank was paying till the reconciliation. Now, after reconciliation the overpayment was detected and pension has been revised correctly @ Rs. 16080/-p.m. Overpayment of Rs. 12,16,644/- has been made from dated 27.07.2016 to 30.06.2024 i.e. before reconciliation of pensioner's data. Resultantly Overpayment of 12,16,644/- (Rs. 10,64,448/- + Rs. 1,52,196/-) has been made. It is submitted by the respondents that the pension of individual is paid from public money (i.e. Taxpayer’s money) only and this amount of overpayment never belonged to the applicant or the bank. Hence, the respondents are entitled to recover the excess amount paid to the applicant.
The respondent No. 3 has also filed the counter affidavit stating therein that after enforcement of 7th pay Commission the PPO respect to the applicant family pension further revised on 04.01.2020 by which the family pension of the applicant has been revised as Rs. 16080/ per month, which was start from 01.01.2016, which is clear from the perusal of the PPO dated 04.01.2020 (Annexure-2). In the PPO dated 04.01.2020, it is specifically mentioned that if the actual pensioner died prior to 01.01.2016, then the family pension payable as enhance rate, but in this case the pensioner namely Late Shri Ram Upadhyay was died on 27.07.2016, therefore the applicant was only entitled for normal rate of family pension. It is very relevant to mention here that the as per PPO dated 27.10.2017 issued by the respondent no. 2, it is clear that the applicant was entitled for family pension as Rs. 15600/ per month, but due to mistake of the bank, the amount of Rs. 26000/- per month has been credited in the account of the applicant in place of Rs. 15600/ per month from 19.01.2018 to 27.01.2020 and as per PPO dated 04.01.2020 issued by the respondent no. 2, it is clear that the applicant was entitled for family pension as Rs. 16080/ per month, but due to mistake of the bank the amount of Rs. 26800/ per month has been credited in the account of the applicant in place of Rs. 16080/ per month from 21.02.2020 to 30.05.2025 which was disclosed from inspection of the pension deportment due to that reason, the applicant received more amounts, but the respondent no. 2 only issued the impugned order for the period of 01.07.2024 to 30.05.2025 as Rs. 1,43,608/and further informed that if any excess amount paid to the applicant from the period of 28.07.2016 to 30.06.2024 same shall be recovered after verification from the bank; and also submitted that the bank deducted the amount of Rs. 9970/ in the month of June 2025 and rest excess payment has to be recovered in future months. Counsel for the respondent No. 3 submitted that nothing wrong has been committed by the Bank hence, the O.A. is liable to be dismissed.
The main controversy in this O.A. is that by mistake the respondents have paid the excess amount as family pension to the applicant and after coming to know the mistake, they started recovery from the family pension of applicant. The controversy in this O.A. has already been resolved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in various cases. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and Others Vs. Rafiq Masih 2015 (4) SCC 334 has clearly held that in case of incorrect fixation of pay scale, any payment is made, recovery cannot be made after retirement from class-III and IV employee, therefore the recovery made from the applicant is illegal. The relevant portion of aforesaid Judgment is quoted below: -
“[12]. . . . . .
(i)Recovery from employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV service (or Group 'C' and Group 'D' service).
(ii)Recovery from retired employees, or employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery.
(iii)Recovery from employees, when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery is issued.
(iv)Recovery in cases where an employee has wrongfully been required to discharge duties of a higher post, and has been paid accordingly, even though he should have rightfully been required to work against an inferior post.
(v)In any other case, where the Court arrives at the conclusion, that recovery if made from the employee, would be iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary to such an extent, as would far outweigh the equitable balance of the employer's right to recover.”
The submission of counsel for the applicant is that as per para-12 sub para (ii) of the Hon’ble Apex Court judgment, the recovery from the retired employee, or employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery, no excess payment paid to him/her can be recovered.
In the recent case of the ‘Jagdish Prasad Singh V. State of Bihar and others 2024 SCC Online SC 1909, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has relied upon the Judgment in the case of ‘Syed Abdul Qadir V. State of Bihar (2009) 3 SCC 475’ wherein it was held as under: -
“57.This Court, in a catena of decisions, has granted relief against recovery of excess payment of emoluments/allowances if (a) the excess amount was not paid on account of any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee, and (b) if such excess payment was made by the employer by applying a wrong principle for calculating the pay/allowance or on the basis of a particular interpretation of rule/order, which is subsequently found to be erroneous.”
. . . .
24.Recently, this Court in Thomas Daniel v. State of Kerala, held that the State cannot recover excess amount paid to the ex-employee after the delay of 10 years.
. . . . . . .
26.The learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of the High Court of Patna also seem to have fallen in the same error. The impugned action directing reduction of pay scale and recovery of the excess amount is grossly arbitrary and illegal and also suffers from the vice of non-adherence to the principles of natural justice and hence, the same cannot be sustained.”
Considering the facts of the case, contention of the applicant as well as of the respondents, this Court is of the opinion that the case of applicant is squarely covered with the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra) and in the case of Jagdish Prasad Singh (supra) where the relevant case laws have been discussed.
From perusal of P.P.O. dated 04.01.2020, it is clear that the family pension was fixed as Rs.26,800/- w.e.f. 01.01.2016, however, the deceased employee died on 27.07.2016, therefore, fixation of Rs.26,800/-was wrong. However, any rectification in P.P.O. or recovery in pursuance to the same, is an erroneous act of respondents. Therefore, any such action is not permissible and before exercising such action, opportunity must be given to the applicant by way of show cause notice/opportunity of hearing.
Therefore, looking to the aforesaid discussion, the O.A. is partly allowed. The impugned order dated 18.07.2025 passed by respondent No. 2 is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to refund the recovered amount, if any, to the applicant along with interest at the rate of 6% within a period of three months from the date of receiving the certified copy of this order. However, the respondents are directed to issue show cause notice to the applicant with regard to reduction/ correction in the family pension as per P.P.O. dated 27.10.2017 as well as the P.P.O. dated 04.01.2020 issued by the respondents and after getting the reply from the applicant, necessary action shall be taken with information to the applicant. As the applicant is aged about 80 plus, the exercise shall be completed expeditiously. No cost. All the pending MAs shall be deemed to have been disposed of.