Recovery of excess pension payments is impermissible under certain conditions, particularly for retired employees.

ORDER :

1. The present Writ Petition is filed seeking for a direction to the Respondents to release full pension and pensionary benefits like Gratuity and Commutation of Pension due to the Petitioner with quantified interest at 10% per annum.

2. The facts leading to filing of the present Writ Petition are as follows:

The Petitioner was initially appointed as Attender in Kalidindi Gram Panchayat in Krishna District on 11.11.1992 on compassionate grounds. Subsequently, the Petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.06.2024 after rendering 31 years of continuous service in the same post. On retirement, the pension proposals of the Petitioner have been sent by Respondent No.5 to Respondent No.4 and ‘No Due Certificate’ was also issued. In spite of the same, the retirement benefits were not being finalized.

3. On persuasion, the Petitioner was informed that vide Lr.S.A.No.65/2024-2025, dated 25.06.2024 addressed by Respondent No.4 to Respondent No.5, the time scale of the Petitioner was wrongly fixed at Rs.1,475/- in the year 1992 as against the minimum time scale of Rs.1,375/- and therefore, recovery was contemplated for excess payment made to the Petitioner upto 11.11.1992. Hence, the present Writ Petition is filed.

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner Sri M. Srikanth narrated the contentions raised in the writ affidavit. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-IV appearing for Respondent Nos.1 to 4 would submit that necessary steps are being taken to make payment to the Petitioner after deducting the recovery amount of excess payment made to the Petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel Sri G. Srinivasula Reddy appearing for Respondent No.5 submits that the proposals were sent to Respondent No.4 and their role ends at that point of time.

5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Others v. Rafiq Mashi (White Washer) and Others, (2015) 4 SCC 334 formulated certain situations, where recovery was made impermissible. Paragraph No.18 thereof is extracted below:

“18. 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, 9 based on the decisions referred to hereinabove, we may, as a ready reference, summarise the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law:

(i) Recovery from the employees belonging to Class III and Class IV service (or Group C and Group D service).

(ii) Recovery from the retired employees, or the employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery.

(iii) Recovery from the 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.”

6. The above Judgment holds good as on date and was followed in Thomas Daniel v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 438 and Jogeshwar Sahoo and Others v. The District Judge, Cuttack, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 396.

7. Even assuming that the contention of Respondent No.4 vide letter dated 25.06.2024 is said to be correct, the Petitioner had no role in fixation of pay and the pensionary benefits of the