Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
ANAND SHARMA
Neelam Kaushik W/o Late Shri Rajeev Kaushik – Appellant
Versus
Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
ANAND SHARMA, J.
1. Petitioner has challenged the order dated 08.08.2017 along with office note-sheet and statement whereby, recovery is sought to be made from the family pension, being received by the petitioner in lieu of services rendered by her husband-Late Shri Rajeev Kaushik.
2. In the instant writ petition, it has been submitted by the petitioner that her husband Late Shri Rajeev Kaushik was holding substantive post of LDC in respondent-Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (for short, ‘the RSRTC’). He took voluntary retirement on 30.08.2011, soon thereafter, unfortunately died on account of disease of Cancer on 23.01.2012.
3. It has been stated by the petitioner that under such circumstances, the respondents sanctioned family pension in favour of the petitioner w.e.f. 24.01.2012, which the petitioner continued to receive @ Rs.9,150/- per month at the relevant time.
4. The petitioner has also stated that on account of on going disease, she could not check her bank account where her family pension was being deposited. However, when it appeared to her that some deductions were made, she enquired into the fact and could learn that without giving any opportunity of he
Recovery of excess pension payments without notice or opportunity to be heard violates principles of natural justice, and such recovery is impermissible if no fraud or misrepresentation is involved.
Recovery of excess pension from a family pensioner after significant delay is impermissible without misrepresentation or fraud, violating principles of natural justice.
Excess payments made without fraud or misrepresentation are not recoverable from employees, emphasizing justice and equity in recovery actions.
Recovery of excess pension payments may be impermissible in certain situations, especially when it would be harsh or prejudicial to the beneficiary's survival.
The impermissibility of recovery in certain situations and the iniquitous nature of recovery after a long period.
The court balanced the legal obligation of the petitioner's declaration with the petitioner's financial circumstances by directing a reduced recovery rate of 20% of the family pension.
Recovery of excess pension payments is impermissible if it causes undue hardship to the recipient, especially when the recipient is not at fault.
Recovery of excess pension payments is impermissible without fraud or misrepresentation, emphasizing equitable treatment for pensioners.
Recovery of excess pension from retired employees is permissible if an undertaking authorizing such recovery was provided by the employee.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
