Recovery of overpaid pension is permissible despite challenges if prior adjustments remain unaddressed and entitlement errors confirmed.

ORDER :

BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY, J.

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

2. Heard learned counsel for the Parties.

3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:-

“It is therefore most humbly prayed that this Hon‘ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit this writ application, issue “Rule NISI in the nature of writ of mandamus quashing the order. dtd. 25.11.2020 as at Annexure-19 and further directing the opp. Party No.1 to take 2 final decision on the letter dtd. 181.2000 of opp. party No.2 as at Annexure-2 for condonation of break in service and . accordingly extend the pension and other pensionary benefits in favour of the petitioner within a period _ stipulated by this Hon‘ble Court

II. To quash the decision of opp. party no.3 dtd. 9.3.2015 as at ~ Annexure-14 for recovery of amount of Rs.5,02,524/. from the petitioner showing it as excess payment.

And to further direct the opp. Parties to release the pension and other pensionary benefits of the petitioner.”

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that while continuing as a Staff Nurse in the establishment of Opp. Party No.3, Opp. Party No.1 on the face of the request made by Opp. Party No.2 vide his letter dated 18.01.2000 under Annexure-2, never took a decision with regard to regularization of the leave period so availed by the petitioner at different point of time.

4.1. Not only that prior to taking a decision on the request made under Annexure-2 and considering the application submitted by the petitioner on 08.02.2010 to take Voluntary Retirement from Service, the same was allowed by the Opp. Party No.3 vide order dated 30.06.2010 under Annexure-3.

4.2. It is contended that after accepting the application for Voluntary Retirement vide order dated 30.06.2010, petitioner was sanctioned with the Provisional Pension w.e.f. 01.07.2010 vide order dated 17.08.2010 of Opp. Party No.3 under Annexure-5. However, when final pension papers were submitted by the self-same Opp. Party No.3 to the office of Opp. Party No.4 vide letter dated 18.09.2013 under Annexure-9, objection was raised by the office of Opp. Party No.4 vide letter dated 06.01.2014 under Annexure-9 and another objection vide letter dated 25.06.2014 under Annexure-10.

4.3. Basing on such objection raised by the office of Opp. Party No.4, Opp. Party No.3 vide letter dated 27.10.2014 under Annexure-11, revised the provisional pension of the petitioner to Rs.5940/- + T.I. on the face of the provisional pension sanctioned earlier vide order at Annexure-5 at Rs.8910/- +T.I.. It is contended that subsequently when office of Opp. Party No.4 raised another objection with issuance of letter dated 28.01.2015 under Annexure-13, Opp. Party No.3 vide communication dated 09.03.2015 under Annexure-14, held the petitioner liable to refund a sum of Rs.5,02,524/- i.e. excess payment drawn by her towards Provisional Pension, Provisional DCRG and Commuted value of pension etc.

4.4. It is contended that petitioner though made a representation before Opp. Party No.1 seeking regularization of the break period of service in terms of the communication issued under Annexure-2 and no decision was taken, she moved the Tribunal by filing O.A. No.566 of 2018. The Tribunal vide order dated 04.04.2018 under Annexure-17, when directed Opp. Party No.1 to take a decision on the petitioner’s claim and the same was not acted upon, petitioner again approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.3725 of 2020.

4.5. This Court vide order dated 05.02.2020 under Annexure-18, when directed Opp. Party No.1 to comply the order passed by the Tribunal in its order dated 0