Recovery of excess pension payments is impermissible if it causes undue hardship to the recipient, especially when the recipient is not at fault.

JUDGMENT :

MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI, J.

1. This intra court appeal is directed against an order and judgment dated 11.02.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge [“the Writ Court”] in OWP No. 722/2009 titled "Smt. Sudershan Shrma Vs. State of J&K and others‟

FACTUAL MATRIX :

2. The husband of the appellant was serving in Geology and Mining Department, at Jammu. He retired as Drilling Engineer in the said department in the year 1998 and died on 05.07.2002, whereafter the appellant started receiving family pension under Account No. 16644, with effect from August, 2002 from respondent Nos. 2 & 3. The appellant was receiving pension on month to month basis till June, 2009, but the same was refused by respondent No.3, she was informed that an amount of Rs.2,32,707/- has to be recovered on account of excess amount been received by the appellant.

3. It is stated that no notice of alleged recovery has ever been received by the appellant, as such, she was constrained to file a Writ Petition bearing OWP No. 722/2009 titled "Smt. Sudershan Sharma Vs. State of J&K and others‟, thereby challenging the order of recovery of Rs. 2,32,707/- and also to seek release of the monthly pension in favour of the appellant, with effect from June, 2009, which is the only source of income of the appellant.

4. Learned Single Bench held as under:-

“18. Having, regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the judgments supra including the circular dated 08.01.2013 read with order dated 17.03.2016 of Reserve Bank of India, it is deemed appropriate and in the interest of justice to leave the matter of recovery of the excess amount of pension drawn by the petitioner to be considered and decided by the respondent-Bank keeping in mind the status of the petitioner being a widow and the amount of pension the petitioner may be actually entitled to draw.

19. Accordingly, petitioner shall appear before the respondent No.3 who shall take a decision in this regard compassionately, reasonably and rationally.

20. It is made clear that no recovery be effected by the respondent-Bank against the petitioner qua the amount in question till a decision taken as directed above.”

5. The appellant herein has challenged the judgment/order on the ground that the same is not in consonance with the law. The excess amount of pension withdrawn by the appellant, was due to the fault on the part of the respondents, as such, they are estopped from recovering the excess amount of pension given to her. Moreover, there was no malafide on the part of the appellant for receiving the excess amount of pension. It is stated that the respondents cannot punish the appellant for their own negligence. There is no misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the appellant in receiving the excess amount of pension as alleged by the respondents. The amount to be recovered from the appellant without any notice has been sought by the respondents after a lapse of about 13 years, the same has not been considered by the Writ Court.

6. It is stated that the appellant is in her advance age and is a renal patient for the last more than 50 years, as such, requires proper medication. In case any amount is curtailed from the family pension, which the appellant is receiving, it will be very difficult for her to sustain, as such, on humanitarian grounds also appellant seeks quashment of the recovery proceedings for the amount sought to be recovered by the respondents.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgments of Supreme Court in case titled "State of Punjab Vs. Rafiq Masih‟ reported as (2015) 4 SCC 334 and in case titled "Chandi Prasad Uniyal and others Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others‟, reported as (2012) 8 SCC 417, wherein it is held that the monetary benefits given to the petitioner(s), in excess to their entitlement, the benefits had flowed to them consequent upon a mistake committed by the concerned authority in determining the emoluments paid to them, cannot be recovered after a considerable d