IMPORTANT POINT
Excess pension payments knowingly accepted can be recovered, and failure to object to such payments undermines claims against recovery.

JUDGMENT :

Mr. Harsimran Singh Sethi, J.(Oral): In the present petition, the grievance being raised by the petitioner is qua the amount of Rs.6,36,386/- which is being recovered by the respondents from the family pension of the petitioner

2. Certain facts needs to be noticed for the correct appreciation of the facts mentioned.

3. The husband of the petitioner namely Hukam Chand, who was working with the Haryana Roadways Department on the post of Blacksmith retired from service on 31.12.2000, who died on 11.05.2021. The petitioner was being paid the enhanced family pension for a period of seven years, which was to be reduced to the normal family pension. Thereafter, as per the pension payment order, the petitioner was informed that enhanced rate of family pension will be payable from 12.05.2001 upto 11.05.2008 and thereafter, the family pension will be released to the petitioner on normal rates starting from 12.05.2008.

4. Inadvertently, the petitioner continued to get the enhanced pension upto 31.08.2021 thereby getting a sum of Rs.6,22,520/- beyond the entitlement.

5. When, the said discrepancy was discovered by the respondents, a legal notice was given to the petitioner for the refund of the excess amount and she was also asked to appear in person but, the said opportunity was not availed by her and ultimately, the recovery of the excess amount for the period from 12.05.2008 to 31.10.2021 amounting to Rs.6,36,386/- was started.

6. When the said recovery was started, the petitioner was aggrieved against the said recovery and the petitioner approached this Court by challenging the said recovery by filing CWP No. 24489 of 2021, which was decided on 01.02.2023 and it was mentioned that as the show cause notice was not received by the petitioner, a fresh show cause notice be issued to petitioner to explain the payment of enhanced pension and after giving her reasonable opportunity, appropriate order be passed.

7. Thereafter, a fresh show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 06.07.2022 rasing the said plea that the petitioner has been paid a sum of Rs.6,36,386/- beyond her entitlement, which is liable to be recovered and no reply was again filed and the respondents started the recovery from the petitioner which recovery is now being challenged in the present writ petition.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that once excess amount has been paid to the petitioner by the respondents without their being any misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner, keeping in view the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in State of Punjab and others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), decided on 18.12.2014, it was stated that no amount can be recovered.

9. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that no valid opportunity was given to the petitioner to defend herself against the said recovery hence, the recovery being made from the family pension of the petitioner is by violating the principal of natural justice.

10. Keeping in view the advance copy given, the respondent bank has appeared and stated that petitioner knew that for a particular period, the petitioner will be paid enhanced family pension which was for a period of 7 years, thereafter normal pension was to be paid and inadvertently the enhanced pension was paid to the petitioner upto the year 2021 which excess payment released to the petitioner is liable to be recovered.

11. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that when the recovery from the petitioner was started initially, a show cause notice was given to the petitioner, who never filed the reply and even to the subsequent show cause notice, no reply was filed hence, the recovery is being done from the petitioner which mean the petitioner cannot retain as the same is beyond her entitlement.

12. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their assistance.

13. The first question whether, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the recovery is to be