Shanti Bai vs Commissioner

Sujoy Paul, J.—By filing this petition, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside the direction to recover an amount of Rs. 32,672/- from the petitioner with further prayer to direct the respondents to continue to pay her pension @ Rs. 664/- per month.

The petitioner is widow of Basant Lal, who was employee of J.C. Mills, Gwalior. Basant Lal expired on 28.12.1999. It is contended that the respondents passed the Pension Payment Order and quantified the pension of petitioner @ Rs. 664/- per month. They paid this amount from 28.12.1999 to 5.10.2010, thereafter have reduced the amount to Rs. 468/- per month. Shri Jain submits that the said action is bad in law. There was no misrepresentation of fact by the petitioner and, therefore, recovery is bad in law.

By filing return, it is contended that 664/- was the amount which was required to be paid to the employee. After death of the employee, as per the provision of sub-para (C) of para 12(1) read with para 2(a)(iii) of Employees Pension Scheme, 1995, the amount of monthly pension payable to member is to be reduced and by invoking said clause the amount has been reduced. In support of said contention, a detailed chart, Annexures R-2 and R-3, is filed. In this chart the method of calculation is shown.

In the rejoinder, the petitioner has not questioned the formula, by which the petitioner''s pension is recalculated. In other words, it is not the case of the petitioner that the action of the respondents in reducing the pension and refixing it, as mentioned in paras 1.3 and 1.4 of the return, is impermissible. It is only contended that the recovery is impermissible.

In the considered opinion of this Court, in absence of establishing that the petitioner is entitled to continue with pension @ Rs. 664/- per month, no fault can be found in re-calculating and re-fixing the widow''s monthly pension as Rs. 468/-. Thus, the action of respondents in- calculating and re-fixing the pension is upheld.

The next question is whether the recovery is permissible?

In the considered opinion of this Court, there was no misrepresentation of fact by the petitioner in getting pension @ Rs. 664/-. As held by the Apex Court in Sahib Ram Vs. State of Haryana and Others, , in recovery cannot be made when no misrepresentation is made by the claimant. In Chandi Prasad Uniyal and Others Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others, , the Apex Court opined that in Sahib Ram and other cases the recovery is interfered with because in those cases it would have caused great hardship to the claimant. Present case is also of similar nature. The petitioner is a widow and dependent of deceased-employee. Any recovery will have serious financial burden on her. Thus, recovery of Rs. 32,672/- is set aside. The respondents shall release the due pension to the petitioner from due date forthwith. Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above.