CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI BENCH Dated this the 21^st day of January, Two Thousand Twenty Six CORAM :

HON'BLE MR M. SWAMINATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER A. S. Devaraj, S/o A. Shanmugham, No.54/22, Mariamman Koil Street, Gandhipet, Tirupattur. .. Applicant By Advocate M/s. R. Malaichamy Vs.

l. Union of India rep by the Joint Controller of Communication Accounts (PDA), O/o the Principal Controller of Communication Accounts, Tamil Nadu Circle, Chennai.

2. The Deputy Controller of Communication Accounts (PDA), O/o the Principal Controller of Communication Accounts, Tamil Nadu Circle, Chennai.

3. The Assistant Controller of Communication Accounts (PDA), O/o the Principal Controller of Communication Accounts, Tamil Nadu Circle, Chennai.

4. The Postmaster, Gudiyattam HO, PIN 632 008 .. Respondents By Advocate Mr. M. Kishore Kumar, SPC

ORDER

(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. M. Swaminathan, Judicial Member)

This OA has been filed by the applicant seeking the following relief:

rd “To call for the records of 3 respondent pertaining to his order which is made in PCCA/TN/PVA/Gudiyattam HPO /2018-19, dated th

10.05.2019 addressed to the 4 respondent and the th order of 4 respondent made in No.AC-13/92/19, nd dated 16.08.2019, the order of 2 respondent made in Pr. CCA / TN / PVA / OA.No.1274/2019, dated st

02.12.2022 and the order of the 1 respondent made in No. Pr. CCA/TN/PVA/OA No.1274/2019, dated 05.11.2024 and set aside the same; consequently direct the respondents to refund the amount recovered if any and to pass such further or other orders as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case”

2. The facts leading to the filing of the case are as follows:

The applicant initially joined the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) as a Technician on 05.09.1976. Subsequently, he was absorbed into Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL). He retired from service as a Junior Telecom Officer (JTO) on 31.05.2010. Upon retirement, the applicant exercised his option to draw pension through the office of the 2nd respondent and has been regularly receiving pension thereafter. While so, the 4th respondent issued a recovery order, dated 16.08.2019 directing recovery of a sum of Rs.12,49,322/- to be credited to the Government account, alleging that excess pension had been paid to the applicant. This action was based on the directions of the 3rd respondent vide letter dated 10.05.2019 addressed to the 4th respondent. The alleged excess payment was stated to have occurred nearly nine years earlier due to an erroneous fixation of IDA by the department. Aggrieved, the applicant submitted a representation dated 09.09.2019 to the 4th respondent, requesting that no recovery be effected in view of the instructions contained in DoPT O.M. No.88/03/2015–Estt. (Pay-I) dated 02.03.2016. As per the said O.M., recovery from pensioners in such circumstances is impermissible in law, particularly when the alleged excess payment pertains to a period exceeding five years. It is thus evident that no recovery could legally be made from the pension of the applicant. Challenging the recovery order, the applicant filed OA No.1274/2019 before this Tribunal, wherein an interim order was granted on 23.09.2019. The said OA was finally disposed of by an order dated 06.06.2022. Pursuant thereto, the applicant submitted a further representation dated 20.12.2022 to the 2nd respondent. However, the 1st respondent rejected the applicant’s claim vide order dated 05.11.2024, without due consideration of the grounds raised in the representation. Hence, the present Original Application.

3. The principal contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that although the 2nd respondent issued a notice, dated 02.12.2022 in compliance with the order of this Tribunal in OA No.1274/2019 dated 06.06.2022, the 1st respondent thereafter passed a non-speaking and arbitrary order dated 05.11.2024 directing recovery of the alleged excess payment from the applicant’s monthly pension. It