AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Per Dr. Hukum Singh Meena, Member (A)
Being aggrieved from the order dated 26.02.2022 and 20.03.2026 whereby the order of the recovery of the excess payments made from the family pension of the widow of the deceased had been ordered to be recovered, the applicant has filed the present OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and sought following reliefs:-
“(i)By an appropriate writ, order or direction impugned order dated 26.02.2022 at Annexure-A/1 and impugned order dated 20.03.2026 at Annexure-A/2 be declared illegal and be quashed and set aside.
(ii)By order or direction Respondents may be directed to refund an amount of Rs.49,803/- plus as sum of Rs.2,68,000/- upto April, 2026 plus any recovery thereafter along-with interest @ 9% per annum.
(iii)Any other relief which is found just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the applicants in the interest of Justice.”
Brief facts of the case are as under :-
The husband of the applicant late Shri Ratan Lal Jingar had superannuated from service on 31.05.2011 while working on the post of Sub-Postmaster. Subsequently, he was issued PPO dated 24.05.2011. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the husband of the applicant Shri Ratan Lal Jingar expired on 29.01.2017 and thereafter the widow of Shri Ratan Lal namely Smt. Jamna Devi, applicant herein was issued and paid family pension regularly. However, on 26.02.2022, the applicant was informed by the respondents No.4 and 5 that the applicant had been paid excess pension of an amount of Rs.5,69,803/- whereupon the respondents after filling the Withdrawal Form SB-7 withdrawn Rs.49,803/- from pension account of the applicant and also issued order for recovery of the remaining balance of excess payment without any authority. Thereafter, the applicant contacted her advocate, Shri Shyam Sharma, who issued a legal notice to respondent No.4 stating that without informing the applicant why an amount of Rs.49,803/- had been withdrawn from her saving account. It is apt to mention that excess payment of pension had been paid due to clerical error of the staff of the pension disbursing Bank, whereof the applicant was not responsible and she further requested not to make any recovery from her pension. However, the respondents continued to recover the excess payment @ Rs.5,360/-per month. Being aggrieved from the decision of the respondents, the applicant contacted Respondent No.3, however, no positive response was received from him. Thereafter, she moved an application under RTI Act, 2005 seeking information whereon the respondents vide their letter dated 05.02.2026 informed that the subject matter is under departmental inquiry, therefore, information could not be given.
Learned counsel for the applicant further mentioned that the applicant made representation dated 02.03.2026 stating therein that her husband died on 29.01.2017 and according to Pension Rules, she had been sanctioned family pension as she is entitled for 60% family pension for first seven year from the date of death of her husband. However, she was paid excess pension due to administrative or clerical mistake committed by the administrative department. She did not conceal any fact or played fraud in getting more family pension. Applicant also relied upon the judgment and the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) in CA No.11527/2014 decided on 18.12.2014, wherein it is stipulated that no recovery can be made from the pension, if any excess payment has been made due to clerical or administrative error. Applicant also referred DOPT OMs dated 02.03.2016 and 04.05.2016 and requested to stop the recovery of the excess payment from her family pension. Since the applicant was not given any reply on the RTI Application, 2005, she filed appeal to the Appellate Authority vide letter dated 20.04.2026. In response to the appeal under RTI Act, 2005, the respondent vide impugned order dated 20.03.2026 informed the applicant that she was entitled for normal family pension of Rs.16,080/-from 25.05.2018 whereas she has been paid enhanced family pension of Rs.26,800/- upto February, 2022. Therefore, a sum of Rs.5,69,803/- had been paid excess of her entitlement, Further, an amount of Rs.49,803/-had been withdrawn from her saving account on 03.03.2022 and a recovery of Rs.5,360/- is continued from March, 2022 upto February, 2022. Recovery of an amount of Rs.2,57,280/- and various amounts would be recoverable is Rs.2,62,720/- Therefore, the applicant requested that in view of the above facts, her OA may be allowed on the following grounds.
That the action of the respondent No.4 without any authority to fill up a withdrawal form SB-7 and recovered and withdrawal of amount of Rs.49,803/- from the saving account of the applicant is a case of fraud and misappropriation of public money, which is also without jurisdiction and deserve to be quashed and set aside. As per the dicta laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) in CA No.11527/2014, no recovery can be made from the pensioner or Group-C employee, if any excess payment has been paid due to mistake of the administrative or clerical error. She also relied upon the OMs issued by the DoPT dated 02.03.2016 and 05.04.2016, wherein it is stated that no recovery can be made from the pension or family pension. The applicant also relied on the Office Memorandum dated 05.04.2022 wherein this letter has a reference to Rule 66(4) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021, where it is left to the Administrative Ministry whether to make recovery or not to make recovery of such excess payment and same can be waived off and issue appropriate orders in accordance with the rules. On the basis of the aforementioned grounds, she prayed that her OA may be allowed.
Per contra, the respondents filed reply wherein they have denied the averments made by the applicant and further submitted that the husband of the applicant namely late Shri Ratan Lal Jingar was working as a Sub-Postmaster under the Department of Posts and retired from service on 31.05.2011 after attaining the age of superannuation. Subsequently, the Pension Payment Order (PPO) was also issued on 24.05.2011 in favour of the husband of the applicant according to the applicable pension rules. After the death of the employee namely Late Shri Ratan Lal Jingar on 29.01.2017, the family pension was sanctioned to the applicant as per the relevant provisions governing family pension. As per rules, the enhanced family pension was entitled to the applicant upto seven years from the date of superannuation of her husband, which should have ended on 24.05.2018. However, due to inadvertent continuation of payment of enhanced family pension instead of normal family pension, excess payment was made to the applicant from 25.05.2018 to February, 2022. Subsequently, on scrutinizing of the records by the DDO, it was found that against admissible normal family pension of Rs.16,080/- per month, enhanced family pension of Rs.26,800/- per month continued to be paid, resulting in excess payment of an amount of Rs.5,69,803/-.
Thereafter, a communication was issued to the applicant on 26.02.2022 by disbursing authority informing her about the excess payment and initiation of recovery proceedings in accordance with applicable financial rules and Government instructions relating to recovery of excess pension/family pension. Pursuant to the above decision, an amount of Rs.49,803/- was adjusted/recovered from the applicant's pension account and further recovery order was issued through monthly installments from family pension of the applicant. It is apt to mention that the excess payment is due to overlooking the PPO by the Drawing and Disbursing Authority (DDO) occurred due to administrative oversight in continuation of enhanced family pension beyond the admissible period. Undisputedly and admittedly in the present case, the pension sanctioning authority has not passed any order of recovering the amount affecting any entitlement, however DDO had acted bonafidely and in discharge of its statutory obligation to safeguard Government revenue and rectify the excess payment detected during scrutiny of pension records.
Learned counsel for the respondents further clarified that the applicant was again informed regarding the detailed calculation of admissible family pension, the period during which excess enhanced family pension had been paid, and the recoverable amount. At the cost of repetition, it is to be clarified that as per departmental calculation, out of the total excess payment of Rs.5,69,803/-, a sum of Rs.2,57,280/- had already been recovered upto February, 2026 and the remaining amount is continued to be recovering from future pension installments as per circular CPAO/IT&Tech/SCOVA/20(Vol-1)/2018-19/26 dated 16.05.2018. He further clarified that after retirement of the employee, relation of employer employee was came to an end and thus the answering respondents have no authority or any concerned about the matter as answering respondents are not pension sanctioning authority (in fact DAP, Jaipur is pension sanctioning authority). However, respondents No.2 to 5 remained disbursing banking authority. The pension sanctioning authority i.e. DAP Jaipur correctly sanctioned the pension, therefore, the respondent department being an employer has not decided / ordered any recovery against the applicant but only sought to recover the overpayment made to the applicant as per law and undertaking / certificate authorizing the DDO to recover in case of any overpayment beyond the terms of PPO is made. Therefore, in the absence of any action on the part of employer / DAP Jaipur, deciding any terms or service condition of pensioner which may resulted in recovery, instant case cannot be said to be involved any service matter rather it remained a civil dispute between DDO/banking authority and the applicant herein. Therefore, the present OA is required to be dismissed as not maintainable on this count.
He also vehemently assailed the stand of the applicant based on the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case State of Punjab vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) in CA No.11527/2014, on the basis that the ratio propounded under the aforementioned case was not disputed, however, the dicta laid down in the aforementioned case is not applicable in the present OA as the facts and circumstances of both the cases are different. In the case of Rafiq Masih (supra), there is an error on deciding and fixing the emoluments/pay of the employee therefore in order to take benefits of Rafiq Masih (White Washer), there has to be a relationship of employee and employer, whereas in the present case employer had not issued any instructions to recover any amount from the applicant but it is the DDO/banking authorities has sought to recover the excess payment made to the applicant as per contractual liability between applicant and respondent No.2 to 5. Therefore, the answering respondents have no role to play in the instant case. He further clarified that the instant case even is not covered under the definition of service matters in the absence of any entitlement of the applicant of the amount, which he received unlawfully without any entitlement.
Learned counsel for the respondents also relied upon the judgment delivered in OA No.305/2015 which was dismissed by this Hon'ble Tribunal by holding that the matter between a customer and Bank, the liabilities under Indian Contract Act cannot be denied and nobody can take advantage of any mistaken gain but the same is directed to be recovered in easy installment without any interest, even this Hon'ble Tribunal went on to hold that the OA is not maintainable as the same is not a service matter, therefore, the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in Sahib Ram's case and other cases pertains to recovery is not applicable in such cases and dismissed the OA vide judgment dated 05.04.2016. Similarly, the another case of pensioner was came up before Chandigarh Bench of this Hon'ble Tribunal in OA No.561/2014 decided on 17.04.2015 wherein the question of recovery by the Bank of excess payment than the entitlement to the pensioner was involved and while dealing with such question this Hon'ble Tribunal also dealt with the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court. Similarly, he also referred another OA No.636/2015 Jasvindra Kaur Vs. Union of India & Ors. decided on 23.05.2016 wherein this Hon'ble Tribunal while relying upon the law laid down in case of Rafiq Masih, recovery of the excess payment was upheld but the rate of recovery at the rate of Rs.5000/- per month was reduced to Rs. 3000/- per month keeping in view the hardship of the pensioner. Therefore, admittedly the respondent Bank paid the pension at the enhanced rate mistakably to the applicant without any entitlement, thus, the same is to be recovered from the applicant and the law laid down in Rafiq Masih's case and other judgments namely Sahib Ram Verma's case does not help the applicant. Therefore, on the basis of the above, the respondents prayed that there is no merit in the case of OA and the same may be dismissed.
Heard learned counsel at length and perused the relevant records. It is admitted fact that husband of the applicant namely late Shri Ratan Lal Jigner superannuated on 31.05.2011 from the post of Sub-Postmaster and subsequently he died on 29.01.2017. As per CCS Pension Rules, 2021, applicant should have been sanctioned enhanced family pension for a period of seven years from the date of superannuation or attaining the age of 67 years of her husband, whichever is earlier, which should have been ended on 24.05.2018. In this regard, it is apt to mention the details of the PPO issued by the respondent authority wherein in column 27 with the subject ‘amount of family pension’, it was categorically mentioned that the admissible enhanced family pension of Rs.10,285/-was upto 24.05.2018 and normal family pension of Rs.6,171/- is from 25.05.2018 onward. However, due to inadvertent mistake on the part of the DDO (who is not the employer), the enhanced family pension was continued to be paid till February, 2022, resulting in excess payment of Rs.5,69,803/- of her entitlement. However, the respondents reviewed the decision vide order dated 26.02.2022 issued order of excess payment partly from her saving bank account and partly on the monthly instalment of her family pension. The applicant relied upon the judgment of State of Punjab vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) CA No.11527/2014, whereas respondents relied upon the judgment of OA No.305/2015 decided by the CAT Jodhpur Bench on 05.04.2016, OA No.561/2014 decided by the CAT Chandigarh Bench on 17.04.2015 and OA No.636/2015 decided by the CAT on 23.05.2016.
Now, the core issue before this Tribunal whether the applicant is entitled for the benefit of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) in CA No.11527/2014, (ii) whether the clerical /administrative mistake of the DDO/bank resulting in excess payment to the applicant can be recovered from the applicant and whether it comes under the definition of the civil dispute or the service matter disputes?
To answer this, it is appropriate to reproduce the operating portion of the dicta laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) in CA No.11527/2014, which reads as under:-
“12. It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship, which would govern employees on the issue of recovery, where payments have mistakenly been made by the employer, in excess of their entitlement. Be that as it may, based on the decisions referred to herein above, we may, as a ready reference, summarise the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law:
(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.”
Upon bare perusal of the above ratio, it is fact that there has to be an explicit relationship of employee and employer wherein the employer by mistaken has wrongly fixed the emoluments/salary/pay of the employee, whereas in the present case the employer namely DAP Jaipur is the pension sanctioning authority of the applicant had not passed any order. It was clearly stated in the pension payment order, which is the order of the payment of the pension that the enhanced family pension would be applicable upto 24.05.2018 and thereafter the normal family pension would be applicable from 25.05.2018. It was due to the mistake on the part of the Bank/DDO, which is not the employer in the case of the applicant or competent authority to either sanction/modify/correct the pension order. Therefore, in our considered view the benefit of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Rafiq Masih (supra) is not available to the applicant herein because the facts and circumstances of both the cases are different.
In order to answer second narration, it is admitted fact that when the order for recovery of the excess payment than the entitlement of the employee is decided by other than the employer then in that case, in our considered view, it does not come under the purview of the service matter because the competent authority functioning as employer had not issued any order which resulted into reducing the pension of the employee. It is merely a mistake on the part of the DDO/Bank in disbursing the pension by over citing the end deadlines of the payment of enhanced family pension to the wife of deceased employee and according to the contractual obligation on the part of applicant and DDO Bank, which has been executed with the Bank. It is well within the competency of the DDO/pension disbursing Bank to recover the same.
That as per the contractual liability with the applicant and the Banks/DDO, the Bank /DDO is fully competent to recover the excess payment than the entitlement made to the pensioner according to the guideline laid down by the Reserve Bank of India. Therefore, it is definitely a matter of civil dispute to be dealt with under the Indian Contract Act and does not fall under the definition of service matters, which was also upheld by this Hon’ble Tribunal in OA No.305/2015 and holding that the matter between a customer and the Bank fall under the liabilities under Indian Contract Act, which cannot be denied and nobody can take advantage of any mistakably gain but the same is directed to be recovered in easy instalment without any interest.
Moreover, on the similar matter whether the facts and circumstances of the case are similar in the OA No.148/2018 decided on 09.01.2025 in the case of Uma Devi vs. Union of India, it was held that the controversy in that matter is not with regard to any mistake committed by the employer. Moreover, the applicant submitted undertaking at the time of opening pensioner account with the Bank, therefore, the applicant cannot now restrain the Bank from recovering the amount without establishing her entitlements to get the enhanced rate of family pension even beyond 7 years from the date of the death of her husband. In the present matter, the dispute is between the applicant and Bank which is of civil nature specially covered under Indian Contract Act, therefore, no remedy lies with this Tribunal.
So far as the Office Memorandum dated 05.04.2022 wherein reference is made to Rule 66(4) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021, it was categorically stated that the excess payment was on account of error in initial authorisation or review of pension by the office, which is to be dealt with according to the Rule 66(4) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021, whereas in the present case the competent authority has not committed any mistake in initial authorization or revision of pension/family pension of the applicant herein because in the PPO order it was categorically mentioned that enhanced pension would be available till 24.05.2018. It was the mistake on the part of the DDO/Disbursing Bank due to the over cite or overlooking of the end period of enhanced family pension. Therefore, the guideline of the aforementioned OM issued by the Department of Pension and Pensioners’ Welfare is also not applicable in the case of the applicant.
Therefore, in view of the aforesaid, in the principles laid down by this Bench and the other coordinated Benches of this Tribunal, there is no merit in the present OA. Therefore, the OA is dismissed. Pending Misc. Application, if any, stands disposed of.