Recoveries from pensioners are permissible only under strict guidelines to prevent hardship, emphasizing protection for retired employees against unjust financial demands.

JUDGMENT :

BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY, J.

1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (virtual/Physical) Mode.

2. Heard Mr. D.K. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, Mr. M.K. Balabantaray, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate along with Mr. A.K. Nath, learned counsel appearing for Opp. Party No.3.

3. The Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition inter alia with the following prayer. It is therefore most humbly prayed that the Hon’ble Court may be graciously pleased to admit this writ petition, call for the relevant records and after hearing both the parties, to allow the Writ Petition to the extent that:-

(a) Hon’ble Court be pleased to quash the order of recovery dated 04.08.2020 (as per Annexure-2) of Director of Treasuries & Inspection, Odisha, Bhubaneswar for being illegal, irregular and not sustainablxe in the eye of law and to issue an appropriate writ(s), order(s) and/or direction(s), particularly a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondent-authorities not to recover any amount from the family pension payable to the Petitioner herein towards so called excess payment made to her.

(b) Hon’ble Court be further pleased to issue of an appropriate writ(s), order(s) and/or direction (s), particularly a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the O.P. NO.4 to refund the amount already recovered from the saving bank account of the Petitioner to the tune of Rs.2,73,000/- from 01.12.2020 onwards from Petitioner’s family pension till the date of filing of this petition towards excess paid amount of pension.

4. It is contended that Petitioner while in receipt of family pension, when without any notice, recovery was made basing on the communication issued by Opp. Party No.2 on 04.08.2020 under Annexure-2, Petitioner is before this Court challenging such action of Opp. Parties.

4.1. It is contended that basing on Annexure-2 and by the time the Writ Petition was filed Opp. Party-Bank had already recovered a sum of Rs.2,73,000/- out of the recoverable amount of Rs.8,83,141/-. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that since Petitioner was released with family pension w.e.f April, 2008 and she has received the amount so released by the bank, Petitioner is not liable to refund the excess payment, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Rafiq Masih so followed in the case of Thomas Daniel Vs. State of Kerala & Others. Hon’ble Apex Court in Para 18 of the judgment in the case of Rafiq Masih and in Para-18 of the judgment in the case of Thomas Daniel has held as follows:

xxx xxx xxx

“18. 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. But 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 post, and has been paid accordingly, even though he should have rightfully been required to work against an inferior post.

(v) In any other case, where the court arrives at the conclusion, that recovery if made from