Recovery of excess pension payments after a long delay is impermissible without fraud or misrepresentation, violating principles of natural justice.

ORDER

Per: - Rajinder Singh Dogra, Judicial Member

1. The SWP/WP(C) No. 1274/2018 was transferred from the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir at Jammu and was registered as T.A. No. 61/65/2025 by the Registry of this Tribunal.

2. The present matter was filed before the Hon’ble High Court with following prayer:

a) “Writ petition under Art.226 of the Constitution of India read with section 103 of the Constitution of Jammu & Kashmir for quashment of orders dated 23-5-2018 whereby the order has been issued by the respondent No.3 to recover an amount of Rs,7,49,211 allegedly paid excess DA & MA from 1-5-1974 to 31-3-2018 and has directed the respondent No.4 to deduct Rs.9,323/per month from Family pension.

b) It is therefore prayed that in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned hereinabove the order impugned may kindly be quashed by allowing the petition and pass any other direction which this Hon'ble court deem appropriate.”

3. The facts of the case as averred by the petitioner in her pleadings are as follows:

a) The petitioner, Nirmal Gupta, aged 78 years, widow of Late Ved Paul Gupta, resident of Gandhi Nagar, Jammu, has approached this Court by way of the present writ petition against the State of Jammu & Kashmir through Finance Department, the Accountant General J&K, the Additional Treasury Officer Gandhi Nagar and the Branch Manager J&K Bank Gandhi Nagar.

b) The petitioner’s husband, who was serving as Executive Engineer in the Public Works Department of J&K Government, expired on 30.09.1971 while in service. Consequent thereto, the petitioner was sanctioned and has been receiving family pension under PPO No. 937-F with effect from 01.10.1971.

c) Subsequently, the petitioner herself joined service as Lecturer in the Education Department on 24.04.1974 and upon retirement on 30.04.1998 was granted pension under PPO No. 105606. Since then, she has been receiving both family pension and self-pension as sanctioned by the competent authorities.

d) On 23.05.2018, respondent No. 3 issued an order directing recovery of an amount of ₹7,49,211/- alleged to have been paid in excess on account of DA and Medical Allowance from 01.05.1974 to 31.03.2018, holding that such benefits were wrongly paid on both pensions, whereas the petitioner was entitled only on one pension. The order further directed deduction of ₹9,323/- per month from the family pension through respondent No. 4 bank for effecting recovery.

e) The petitioner challenges the said order on several grounds. She submits that the recovery has been ordered without issuing any notice or affording her an opportunity of being heard, which is in violation of the principles of natural justice. It is further contended that the alleged excess payment was not on account of any misrepresentation or fraud on her part, rather the sanction and disbursement was made by the respondents themselves. The impugned order seeks recovery after more than four decades, which according to the petitioner is arbitrary, harsh, and unsustainable in law. She disputes the amount of recovery, alleging that it has been arbitrarily calculated without furnishing any supporting details. She also emphasizes that she had no role in the calculation of pensionary benefits and the respondents themselves had sanctioned DA and MA on both pensions.

f) It is further submitted that recovery after more than 40 years, in the absence of any allegation of fraud or misrepresentation, is impermissible in law and is contrary to settled legal principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and various High Courts quashing similar recovery orders.

g) In these circumstances, the petitioner seeks quashing of the impugned order dated 23.05.2018 and a direction restraining the respondents from effecting recovery from her fam