Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 12969
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Rajinder Singh Dogra, J, Ram Mohan Johri, A
Dr. Urmila Kohli – Appellant
Versus
State of Jammu and Kashmir – Respondent
TA 94 of 2025 | SWP No. 1502 of 2015
For the applicant: Ms. Arti Bahl
For the respondents: Mr. Rajesh Thapa, Mr. Kartikya Sharma
Recovery of excess payments made negligently without employee's fault is impermissible, emphasizing judicial discretion to prevent hardship.
Headnote:(A) Jammu and Kashmir Civil Service Rules - Family Pension Scheme - Restrictions on payment of Dearness Allowance on family pension incorporated by SRO 109 dated 11.2.1986 holds relevance, yet no misrepresentation on applicant's part was found. (Paras 5, 10)
(B) Recovery of excess payments - Aimed at penalizing applicants for administrative lapses, the court summarized it is impermissible to recover excess payments made for long durations which causes hardship to the employee, reinforcing equity-based relief. (Paras 6, 7)
Facts of the case:
The applicant received family pension since 1978, but was later informed by the bank of an error leading to an order to recover excess DA since 2013.
Findings of Court:
The recovery notice was quashed due to no fault of the applicant and the court emphasized adherence to principles of natural justice.
Issues: Whether recovery of excess payments made over several years without the applicant's fault is justifiable?
Ratio Decidendi: The constraints on recovery, particularly regarding long-standing erroneous payments and lack of procedural fairness favored the applicant's position.
Result: The recovery notice was quashed, and pension disbursement with DA was ordered to be reinstated.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. description of the applicant's pension situation. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments presented by the respondents regarding excess payment. (Para 3) |
| 3. court observations on natural justice and equity in pension payments. (Para 5 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. decision against the recovery order citing legal precedents. (Para 10) |
| 5. final ruling on the disbursement of pension and recovery notice quashed. (Para 11) |
ORDER
Per Hon’ble Mr. Rajinder Singh Dogra, J.M.
The applicant being aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondents moved the Hon’ble High Court in SWP No. 1502 of 2015. After the promulgation of the J&K Reorganization Act, 2019 and the formation of UT of J&K, the case was made over to this Tribunal where it was re-numbered as TA 94 of 2025. The applicant has prayed for the following relief :
a) an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly a writ of mandamus thereby commanding and directing the Disbursing Officers of Saddar Treasury Jammu/ J&K Bank, Shalamar Branch, Jammu to disburse the Family Pension to the applicant, along with D.A with effect from December 2013 along with arrears;
b) an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly a writ of certiorari thereby quashing the impugned recovery order/notice/balance sheet issued by the Respondent No.5 i.e. Disbursing Officers of Saddar Treasury Jammu/ J&K Bank by way of which he has ordered for affecting recovery of Rs.574404/ from the pension/family pension of the applicant.
c) or for issuance of any other writ order or direction what so ever this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. The fact of the case is that -
a) The applicant was sanctioned family-pension with effect from 26.9.1978 on account of death of her husband, who died in harness while in active service in the year 1978. The deceased husband of the applicant was posted as "Medical Officer, ISM" in the office of the Superintendent, Government Ayurvedic Hospital College, Jammu at the time of his death.
b) It is submitted that at the time of authorization of family pension in favour of the applicant, the Dearness Allowance was also allowed to her by the Disbursing Officers of Saddar Treasury Jammu/ J&K Bank, Shalamar Branch, Jammu, i.e., Respondent No. 5 and 6. The payment of D. A. was allowed every month from September 1978 to November 2013 to the applicant by the Respondents No. 5 and 6.
c) After a lapse of more than 35 years, the Disbursing Officers of the aforesaid Bank informed the applicant that the D.A. being paid to the her on family pension is not admissible under rules and may be deposited immediately failing which the said amount would be recovered from her own pension/family pension. The Respondent No. 6 i.e. the Disbursing Officers of J&K Bank, Shalamar Branch, Jammu has stopped the payment of D.A. on Family Pension to the applicant from the month of December 2013 onwards on their own without issuing notice to her. The Respondent No. 5, has prepared a balance sheet in which it is mentioned that Rs.574407/- is to be recovered from the applicant.
d) The restrictions on the payment of D.A on Family Pension to the government servants in service was incorporated by the way of government instructions vide SRO 109 dated 11.2.1986 and prior to it D.A. was allowed on family pension to the spouse (Govt. Employee) of the deceased employee. No doubt the applicant is getting D.A on family pension since 1978 but there is neither any misrepresentation nor any fraud on the part of the applicant in getting the same and moreover the respondents also failed to obtain mandatory non-employment certificate from the applicant from time to time. The applicant as such, cannot be penalized for the negligence of the respondents as the respondents miserably failed to understand the actual legal position. This action of the respondents more particularly the Respondents No. 5 and 6 is violative of principles of natural justice but is not sustainable in the eyes of l
