ORDER

Delivered By Hon’ble Mr. Tarun Shridhar, Member (A) Shri R.V. Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri M.K.

Yadav, learned counsel for the respondents, are present.

2. The applicant is aggrieved by a revised Pension Payment Order (PPO) issued by the respondents whereby his pension has been reduced retrospectively and the respondents have ordered a recovery of the excess amount paid to him. The relief he seeks in the present O.A. is reproduced below verbatim:-

“ In view of the facts and circumstances mentioned in the paragraph no. 4 above and the grounds in the paragraph no. 5, it is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to issue:

(A) A writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 12.6.2012 passed by the respondents no. 2 (Annexure No. 1 to this original application).

(B) A writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to not to recovered the excess amounts paid from the pension of the applicant in any manner.

(C) Any writ, order or direction in the nature of which this Hon’ble may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.

And (D) Award the costs of the petition to the petitioner/applicant against the respondents .”

3. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant was appointed initially in the Railways as a Trainee Charge Man on 01.05.1965 and rose up to the position of Senior Section Engineer from where he retired on 01.11.2003. At the time of his retirement, a Pension Payment Order was issued fixing his monthly pension as Rs.5,458/- plus dearness relief as admissible from time to time amounting to Rs.3,220/-. At the time of issuance of PPO his total monthly pension amounts to Rs.8,678/-. From the date of his retirement till the issuance of the impugned PPO on 12.06.2012 i.e. a period of more than eight and a half years, the applicant was drawing pension in accordance with the initial PPO which was issued on 17.12.2003. The impugned PPO came into existence after it was discovered that the applicant had already commuted 40% of his pension and taken that amount in lump sum and according to the formula of commutation, this amount was to be reduced from his monthly pension and accordingly, he was to be paid on reduced rates in accordance with rules since he has chosen to commute 40% of the amount.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant argues that applicant is a very senior citizen who is nearing the age of 80 and the order of recovery of the amount of Rs. 2,56,983/- passed by the respondents, will put the applicant to financial hardship on account of his advanced age and precarious financial condition. Learned counsel further submits that the applicant was drawing pension strictly in accordance with the amount and particulars mentioned in the PPO issued on 17.12.2003 immediately after his retirement and the concerned bank was making applicant the payment in accordance with the said PPO. He goes on to submit that the applicant cannot be penalized now after a lapse of eight and a half years and in case there was a mistake which led to an overpayment, the blame for such a mistake rests squarely on the shoulder of the respondents. He further points out that the applicant was receiving the said amount in a bona fide belief that he is being paid pension as per his entitlement and due.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, strongly argues that the applicant, having retired from a responsible position in the government was well aware that he has already commuted 40% of his pension and enjoyed the benefit of a lump sum payment and hence now cannot shrug off his responsibility. Moreover, the learned counsel goes on to argue that this amounts to not only excess payment but also carelessness towards public funds. He points out that when on account of pay revision it