Recovery of excess pension from retired employees is permissible if an undertaking authorizing such recovery was provided by the employee.

JUDGMENT :

K. V. JAYAKUMAR, J .

Impugning the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.352 of 2019 dated 01.01.2020, State of Kerala and its officers preferred this O.P.(CAT). First respondent/applicant, Smt.Baby Valsala T., is the applicant in O.A. Second respondent is the Union of India and respondent Nos.3 to 5 are the officers of the State Bank of India.

2. As per the impugned order, the Central Administrative Tribunal allowed the following claim of the first respondent/applicant.

“i) Issue appropriate order or direction commanding the respondents not to effect any recovery/deduction of the family pension legally due to the applicant.

ii) Issue appropriate order or direction commanding the respondents to return/disburse the entire amount of pension recovered/deducted from the pension account of the late husband of the applicant maintained with the 6^th respondent, with interest minimum at the rate of 9% per annum, forthwith.

iii) Issue appropriate order or direction commanding the respondents to return/disburse the entire amount of family pension recovered/deducted from the family pension of the applicant maintained with the 6^th respondent, with interest minimum at the rate of 9% per annum, forthwith.

iv) Issue such other appropriate direction or order as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.”

3. Facts in narrow compass are as follows:

Respondent No.1/applicant, Smt.Baby Valsala T., is the wife of late Gopinathan, who retired from service while working as Conservator of Forest on 31.08.1997. On 19.08.2018, Gopinathan passed away. Late Gopinathan was drawing pension through the State Bank of India with effect from 01.09.1997.

4. The third petitioner, Senior Accounts Officer, issued Annexure A2 letter directing the District Treasury Officer, Kozhikode to recover excess pension disbursed to the late husband of the first respondent/applicant. The first respondent/applicant challenged the recovery of the excess pension of late Gopinathan on the premise that the recovery was ordered without observing the principles of natural justice, the monthly pension of late Gopinathan was reduced to Rs.30,964/- from the month of June, 2018 and an amount of Rs.4,72,847/- was recovered from the monthly pension by the Bank. After the death of the husband of the first respondent/applicant, the family pension of the applicant was reduced from Rs.28,445/- to Rs.18,971/- without any reason.

5. The contention of the petitioners was that, the pension of late Gopinathan was erroneously fixed in the pay band of Rs.37,400-67,000 - plus Grade pay of Rs.8,700/- - by oversight, which resulted in authorizing the pension at the rate of Rs.23,050/- and family pension of Rs.13,830/- instead of the admissible amount of pension at Rs.16,355/- and family pension at Rs.9,813/- respectively. The erroneous fixation was noticed and the third petitioner intimated it to the District Treasury Officer, Kozhikode vide Annexure A2 letter.

6. The contention of the State Bank of India and its Officers/respondent Nos.3 to 5 herein was that, they are only the pension disbursing agency and cannot go beyond the pension payment orders issued by the competent authority, and bound to follow the instructions issued by the pension sanctioning authority. It is further contended that, late Gopinathan has given an undertaking to the Bank authorizing them to make recovery of excess payment, if any. The applicant is bound by the terms of Annexure R5(a) undertaking cannot challenge the recovery proceedings initiated by the Bank for recovering excess payment made to the deceased petitioner.

7. The Central Administrative Tribunal noticing the rival contentions of the counsel for the parties and placing reliance on decision reported in State of Punjab & Ors. v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) & connected cases (AIR 2015 SC 696) held that the recovery of the family pension of the applicant is impermissible. The relevant paragraphs of the order of the tribunal ar