Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 3919
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
HON’BLE MR RAJVEER SINGH VERMA, J
Lakshmi Devi – Appellant
Versus
Ag – Respondent
O.A./812/2018
Shri M.P. Dixit, Advocate For Respondents:- Shri H.P. Singh, Sr. CGSC Shri Bindhyachal Rai, CGSC for AG
The court ruled that pension revisions must adhere to applicable pay scales, and recovery of excess payments is impermissible under certain conditions, ensuring adherence to principles of natural justice.
Headnote:(A) Pension Act - Revision of family pension - The applicant sought to quash orders reducing her family pension and recovering amounts from her account, claiming violations of natural justice and relevant judicial pronouncements. The court found the pension was revised correctly based on the applicant's husband's pay scale and that recovery was impermissible under established legal principles. (Paras 3, 12, 20, 22)
(B) Natural Justice - The principle of natural justice was invoked regarding the reduction of pension and recovery of amounts, emphasizing the need for fair administrative action. (Paras 3, 20)
(C) Judicial Precedents - The court referenced the Supreme Court's ruling in State of Punjab Vs. Rafiq Masih regarding recovery of excess payments, establishing that recovery is not permissible under certain conditions. (Paras 20, 22)
Facts of the case:
The applicant, widow of a retired officer, had her family pension reduced from Rs. 37,309/- to Rs. 24,360/- and faced recovery of Rs. 2,92,132/-. She contended this was against natural justice and judicial precedents.
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the revision of pension but set aside the recovery order, directing the return of the debited amount with interest.
Issues: The main issues were whether the pension revision was justified and if the recovery was permissible.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the pension was correctly revised based on the applicable pay scale and that recovery was not permissible under the law.
Result: The order of recovery was set aside, and the respondents were directed to return the recovered amount with interest.
ORDER
PER:-RAJVEER SINGH VERMA, MEMBER [J]
1. The applicant has filed the OA for following relief:
“8.1 That your Lordships may graciously be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned Orders dated 05.10.2017 issued by the Respondent No.2 and 25.04.2018 issued by the Respondent No.4 as contained in Annexure-A/4 and A/5 respectively with regard to reduction of her family pension from Rs.37,309/- to Rs.24,360/- as on 01.01.2016 and also the Order of Recovery amounting to Rs.2,92,132/- so recovered / debited from the pension account of the Applicant.
8.2 That your Lordships may graciously be pleased to direct / command the Respondents to restore the family pension of the Applicant as Rs.37,309/- instead of Rs.24,360/- as on 01.01.2016 without any delay.
8.3 That your Lordships may graciously be pleased to direct / command the Respondents to refund the debited /recovered amount of Rs.2,92,132/-henceforth alongwith statutory interest.
8.4 Any other relief or reliefs including the cost of the proceeding may be allowed in favour of the Applicant.”
2. Brief facts of the case are that applicant is widow of Late Kali Kumar Das, Retd. Officer of Indian Audit & Account Services. Late Kali Kumar Das was superannuated from service on 30.01.1992 and was allowed pension vide PPO No. 621239200016 who received pension till 09.01.2010 and expired on 10.01.2010. After death of the husband of the applicant, the applicant was allowed family pension till October, 2017. Her pension was reduced from the month of November, 2017 to Rs. 24,360/-. She submitted a representation before the respondent authorities on 01.02.2018 but she got no reply to above representation which compelled her to approach the Office of the Respondent no. 2.
3. Applicant’s pension has been revised and fixed at Rs. 24,360/- w.e.f. 01.01.2016 vide dated 05.10.2017 and Rs. 2,92,132/- has been debited from the account of the Applicant vide letter dt. 25.04.2018 which is against the principle of natural justice and various Judicial pronouncements of Hon’ble Supreme Court, Hon’ble High Courts and different benches of CAT and DoPT’s OM dated 02.03.2016 issued in compliance of the order dated 18.12.2014 passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab Vs. Rafiq Masih (white washer) (2015) 4 SCC 334 .
4. Applicant has also submitted a representation dated 01.02.2018 but to no avail. Hence, this OA.
5. Written statement has been filed by the respondents and they have vehemently opposed the contentions as well prayer made by the applicant.
6. That the answering respondent inadvertently issued revised LTA Pension and Family Pension in the light of DP&PW OM No.38/37/2008-P&PW(A)dated:28/01/2013 w.e.f.01/01/2006 treating the Notional Pay Scale 14300-400-18300 under 5th CPC and PB-4 (37400- 67000) Grade Pay:8700/- under 6th CPC, whereas the petitioner's husband is entitled for convergent notional pay scale of Rs. 12000-375-16500 w.e.f. 01/01/1996 under 5the CPC and notional Grade Pay of Rs. 7600/- in PB3 w.e.f. 01/01/2006 in the following manner: LTA Pension: 23050/- w.e.f. 01/01/2006 to 10/01/2010 (Date of Death of Pensioner), Normal Family Pension: 13830/- w.e.f. 11/01/2010 and Rs. 14517/- W.e.f. 24/09/2012 to CPAO, New Delhi for arranging payment of pension through bank under intimation to the petitioner vide L. No. PAO-1/1002-1003 dated 04/10/2013.
7. Further on receipt of the OM No. 38/37/2008- P&PW(A)dated 30/07/2015 of DP&PW, the answering respondent issued revised authority of the LTA Pension /Family Pension to the petitioner in admissible notional grade pay of Rs. 7600/- in PB3 mentioning therein the admissible amount of LTA Pension at the rate of Rs. 14960/-PM w. e. f. 01/01/2006 to 10/01/2010 (Date of Death of Pensioner) and Family Pension at the rate of Rs.8976/ w.e.f.11/01/2010 vide L. No.PAO-1/572-573 dated: 04/01/2016 to CPAO, New Delhi under intimation to the petitioner through SPEED POST No. EF2179247391N and dt.04/01/2016 respectively. EF217924742IN.
8. That the family pension in r/
