Smt. Suman Lata Choubey vs The Union Of India & Ors.

By Mallika Arya, AM.-

The applicant is aggrieved by recovery made from her family pension. She is seeking direction to the respondents to refund the recovered amount along with interest and further not to make any recovery from her family pension.

Brief facts of the case, as projected in the Original Application are that the husband of the applicant was an employee of the respondent Department. He died in harness on 14.02.2005. After the death of her husband, the applicant had received all death-cum-retiral claims of her husband and is further in receipt of monthly family pension. The applicant submits that without giving any opportunity of hearing, the respondents have reduced her family pension and also started making recovery from her family pension. The recovery amount of Rs.3000/- per month was subsequently increased to Rs.6000/- per month. The applicant raised a protest vide her application dated 28.06.2022 (Annexure A-2) thereby requesting the authorities to stop further recovery. However, no action was taken by the respondents. Hence, this Original Application has been filed.

In their reply, the respondents have stated that as per CCS (Pension) Rules,1972, from the date of death up to seven years, full family pension would be allowed and after seven years, the reduced family pension will be payable to the entitled family member. In the PPO issued in favour of the applicant, she was to be paid Rs.5437/- per month as full family pension up to 14.02.2012 and thereafter from 15.02.2012 reduced family pension of Rs.3263/- per month was required to be paid. However, due to some mistake, the full family pension up to 28.02.2017 was paid to the applicant. Thus, the excess amount to the tune of Rs.414829/- was paid to the Central Administrative Tribunal^{applicant. It was informed to the applicant in 2017 that the excess amount} has been paid to her and the recovery in an installment of Rs.5000/- per month will be made from her family pension. Thereafter, the applicant submitted an application requesting to deduct Rs.2500/- per month. Her request was partially considered and the excess amount paid to the applicant was deducted at the rate of Rs.3000/- per month from 22.04.2017 till January, 2022. However, after audit objection, the amount was increased to Rs.6000/-. The applicant raised the issue when the amount of recovery was increased from Rs.3000/- to Rs.6000/-. However, prior to the same, the applicant did not raise any objection rather she gave her consent to recover the amount in easy installments. The amount excess paid is the Government money and cannot be waived. The applicant has not pointed out any valid reason as to why recovery should not be made from her family pension on account of excess payment.

In her rejoinder to the reply filed by the respondents, the applicant submits that her husband was a Class-III employee and, as such, being the widow of a Class-III employee, recovery from her is impermissible in view of the settled legal position.

We have heard the learned counsels for both the parties and perused the pleadings and the documents available on record.

The counsel for the applicant has submitted that there was no fraud, misrepresentation, concealment or suppression of any fact on applicant’s part and the family pension was sanctioned and calculated by the Department/pensionary authorities. The alleged excess payment occurred solely because of an error on the part of the authorities.

The question which arises for consideration is whether recovery of an alleged excess amount from the family pensioner is legally and equitably justified when the excess payment was not on account of any fraud, misrepresentation or misconduct on the part of the family pensioner.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab & Ors. vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), (2015) 4 SCC 334, considered the question of recovery of excess payments made due to the employer's mistake. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that although it is not possible to prescribe every situation of hardship, recovery would be impermissible in certain categories including recovery from retired employees, recovery where the excess payment had continued for more than five years, and cases where recovery would be so harsh or inequitable as to outweigh the employer's right to recover the amount. The rationale of Rafiq Masih is particularly significant in the case of pensioners because pension constitutes their post-retirement financial support.

In the case of Thomas Daniel vs. State of Kerala & Ors., (2022) 1 SCC 260, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has dealt with the recovery of excess pension paid due to an error on part of the authorities. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that where the employee/pensioner was not guilty of any misrepresentation or fraud and the excess payment has resulted from an error attributable to the authorities, recovery of the excess pension would cause undue hardship. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has specifically observed that pensioners are in a more disadvantageous position than serving employees and has held that such excess pension should not be recovered in the circumstances of that case.

In the present case, there is no material on record demonstrating the fact that the applicant had furnished any false information or suppressed any material fact or even misrepresented her entitlement. The respondents in their reply have also not made any averment in support of their observation. On the contrary, the record indicates that the excess payment arose due to an error in the fixation of family pension by the authorities concerned. The family pension to the applicant was sanctioned and disbursed by the authorities on the basis of official records. In such circumstances, it would be inequitable to shift the entire financial burden of a departmental error on the applicant. In Ms. Indra v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Anr., W.P.(C) No. 4502/2021, decided on 27.05.2026, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has observed that where the overpayment was attributable to the authorities and there was no fraud, misrepresentation or concealment, recovery from the limited family pension was protected by the principles laid down in Rafiq Masih and Thomas Daniel (supra).

Upon consideration of the facts of the case and the settled legal position on the subject and the material available on record, we direct the respondents not to make any further recovery from the family pension of the applicant on account of alleged excess payment. The amount already deducted by the respondents shall be refunded to the applicant along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Accordingly, this Original Application is allowed. No order as to costs.