Important Point—Proceeding cannot remain indefinitely pending.

Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.

1. This writ petition has preferred by the petitioner making the following prayer:

"1. By an appropriate Writ order or direction, notice dated 26.09.2011 (Annexure-5) and notice dated 30.12.2011 (Annexure-6) be declared illegal and the quashed and set aside and the respondent be directed not to recover any amount from the petitioner.

2. By an appropriate Writ order or direction, the respondent be directed the grant family pension to the petitioner as per the notification dated 18.07.1988 (Annexure-3).

3. That by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents be directed to refund the amount already recovered from the petitioner with interest @18% per annum from the date the recovery was affected till the date of payment.

4. Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court considers just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.

5. Costs of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioner."

2. The facts as noticed by this Court in the petition are that the husband of the petitioner died in the year 1945 while in service. The petitioner was granted the family pension under the provisions of Family Pension Rules.

3. The family pension which was initiated at the rate of Rs. 5/- per month got increased to Rs. 3,025/- per month. The respondents wide Annexure dated 18.07.1988 extended the provisions of new Family Pension Rules 1964 to the widows of the Government Employees who retired, or died before 1.3.1964 or opted for old Family Pension Rules. The petitioner was given a letter dated 26.09.2011, whereby it was informed that the Family Pension of the petitioner was revised to Rs. 3025+D.A. but since the petitioner had not submitted pre-64 form, therefore, the amount of pension has been reduced to Rs. 1,000/- per month with effect from August 2011. The order dated 26.09.2011 also ordered recovery of Rs. 364323. The petitioner has approached this Court against such withdrawal and reduction of family pension. The respondents filed a detailed reply and stated that the State Government had sanctioned Civil Gujara to the petitioner wide order No. 24121992 with effect from 1.12.1992 as the petitioner's husband was an employee of the State when he died in 1945. The respondents have stated in their reply that the petitioner was granted announcement in Civil Gujara under undue pressure of higher authorities. The counsel for the respondent has pointed out the order dated 6.6.2000, order dated 12.03.2008 and order dated 19.04.2010. The counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of the Court towards the categorical averment made in ground B that the petitioner had submitted the form pre-64 and thus the recovery as well as the reduction of pension was untenable in the eye of law. The petitioner also drew the attention of the Court to the precedent law laid down in the judgment of State of Punjab and Others versus Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Others reported in 2015(4) SCC 334 the relevant portion of the judgment reads as follows:

"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, 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