JUDGMENT

Jyoti Singh, J. (Oral)

1. Present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner seeking the following reliefs:

"(a) to issue order in the nature of Mandamus to the Respondents to refund the amount of Rupees 20,964/- the illegal and impermissible recovery from the pension/Gratuity of retired class IV/III employee, recovered on the plea of excess payment of pension after revision of pay under 7th pay Commission Recommendation where:

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of State of Punjab and other Vs Rafiq Masih and others, (2015 (4) SCC 334) Ruled.

"That the recovery is impermissible of any short, even if payment is made by mistake or wrongly to Class IV or Class III employee who is due for retirement within one year or retired from service" (2015 (4) SCC 334)

And

(b) Hon'ble High Court of Delhi may issue direction in the nature of mandamus to Respondents for issuing Revised and amended P.P.O. (pension payment order) No. 483 of Durga Charan Murmu, to the petitioner effecting the revision of pension under up gradation of scale under order of dated 06-10-2016 and 7th pay commission Recommendation."

2. Facts to the extent necessary and as averred in the writ petition are that the Petitioner superannuated from the service of Security Printing and Minting Corporation India Ltd. ('SPMCIL')/Respondent No.2 on 31.03.2016 and his pension was fixed at Rs.14,338/- per month w.e.f. 01.04.2016, as per 6th CPC. The pension was subsequently revised based on the pay revisions under 7th CPC and Petitioner was granted revised basic pension at Rs.20,800/- per month vide letter dated 01.08.2017. Petitioner was granted retirement Gratuity after adjusting Rs.1,02,768/- and difference of commutation value of pension of Rs.5,23,891/-. After fixation of pension under 6th CPC, there was upgradation of pay scale on 06.10.2016 under promotion policy of SPMCIL, from Grade Pay of Rs.2400/- to Rs.2800/-. Present petition has been filed by the Petitioner inter-alia assailing the impugned order dated 01.08.2017, whereby recovery of an amount of Rs.20,964/- was effected from the retiral benefits of the Petitioner on account of alleged excess payment of pension while implementing 7th CPC recommendations.

3. Contention of the counsel for the Petitioner is that the impugned action of recovery by SPMCIL is against the settled position of law that no recovery shall be made from retired employees as pension is not the bounty of the State. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab And Others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) And Others, (2015) 4 SCC 334; State of Jharkhand and Others v. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava and Another, (2013) 12 SCC 210 and Deokinandan Prasad v. State of Bihar and Others, (1971) 2 SCC 330.

4. Per contra, stand of the Respondents in the counter affidavit is that the Petitioner retired on superannuation on 31.03.2016 from India Government Mint, Noida and his pension was fixed in PB-1 with Grade Pay of Rs.2400/- under 6th CPC. Post his retirement, he was granted higher Grade Pay of Rs.2800/- w.e.f. 08.12.2015 as per notified Promotion Policy of SPMCIL and his pay was further revised under 7th CPC w.e.f. 01.01.2016. This led to a revision in his retirement benefits.

5. It is sought to be explained by counsel appearing on behalf of Respondents No. 2 and 3 that deduction of Rs.20,964/- vide the impugned order, was made from the Gratuity arrears of 7th CPC due to retrospective implementation of the recommendations, w.e.f. 01.01.2016. Petitioner had drawn his pension during the period 01.04.2016 to 30.06.2017 under 6th CPC in which Dearness Allowance was on the higher side whereas under 7th CPC Basic Pay and Dearness Allowance were merged and 40% of revised basic pension was commuted. On account of commutation of Petitioner's basic pension, pension due (residual pension plus Dearness relief) was lower than the pension drawn in the aforesaid period. Hence, the recovery is justified as it is not on account of