The court upheld the Tribunal's decision to limit pension recovery to three years, emphasizing the hardship on the employee and the absence of fraud.

JUDGMENT

OP (CAT) Nos.227 & 233 of 2019

Dated this the 21 s t day of May, 2025

Nitin Jamdar, C.J.

These two petitions involving the same parties, arise from the same cause and therefore, they are taken up together and disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The Petitioners in both the petitions are a Bank and its authorised officers entrusted with disbursement of pension to Respondent No.1/ Original Applicant before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT). The Respondent No.3 – Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) is the erstwhile employer of Respondent No.1/Original Applicant. The other two Respondents are the Union of India and the Controller of Communication Accounts.

3. The 1^st Respondent, after service of 33 years 6 months and 15 days, took voluntary retirement on 30 October 2009 while working as Sub Divisional Engineer from the office of the 3^rd Respondent – BSNL. He was ₹ granted a monthly pension of 15,790/-. Initially he was drawing his pension from the Coimbatore Branch of the Petitioner Bank and thereafter from the Branch at Pattambi, Kerala.

4. On 13 November 2017, the 1^st Respondent was given a copy of communication issued by the Chief Manager of the Canara Bank, Centralised Pension Processing Centre to the Branch Manager, Canara Bank, Pattambi Branch informing that an amount of ₹ 8,93,682/- was paid to the 1^st Respondent in excess of his eligibility. The 1^st Respondent by filing O.A. No.931 of 2017 dated 20 November 2017 before the Tribunal challenged the action of the Petitioners in ordering recovery from his pension. The Petitioner Bank filed counter and justified its action of ordering recovery. The Tribunal, by its judgment dated 27 February 2019, held that the Petitioner Bank could not recover any amount beyond the limitation period of three years from the date it was actually paid and accordingly disposed of the Original Application by restricting the claim of the Bank to a period of three years. Being aggrieved by this direction contained in the judgment dated 27 February 2019, the Petitioner Bank filed OP(CAT) No.227 of 2019.

5. The 1^st Respondent filed Miscellaneous Application No.313 of 2019 in O.A. No.931 of 2017 before the Tribunal, stating that a lump sum recovery for the three year period would cause great prejudice to him and therefore, he requested that the amount be recovered by the Petitioner Bank in instalments. The Tribunal disposed of this Application by order dated 10 June 2019 directing the Bank to recover ₹ 4,500/- per month from the pension of the 1^st Respondent instead of lump sum. This order dated 10 June 2019 is the subject matter of challenge in OP(CAT) No.233 of 2019.

6. We have heard Mr. T. V. Vinu, learned Central Government Counsel for the 4^th Respondent – Union of India and Mr. Mathews K. Philip, learned Standing Counsel for the employer 3^rd Respondent – BSNL. None appears for the Petitioners and the 1^st Respondent in both the petitions. The record shows that earlier also none had appeared for the Petitioners.

7. As regards the direction for recovery upto a period of three years, there is no challenge by the 1^st Respondent. There is no interim order in both these petitions. Though the recovery initially sought by the Bank was for ₹ 8,93,692/-, as per the order passed by the Tribunal restricting the claim to three years, the amount, as stated by the 1^st Respondent in the Miscellaneous Application, would be ₹ 3,98,439/-. Considering the fact that the recovery for upto three years was not challenged, a substantial amount of recovery has perhaps already been made. Therefore, the only question now remaining is the recovery of the amount beyond the three year period.

8. The 1^st Respondent retired in the year 2009. Based on the age mentioned in the Application, the 1^st Respondent might be over 75 years old now. There is nothing on record to show that the disbursement was made due to any fraud or misrepresentation by the 1^st Respondent. The 1^st Respondent has relied upon the decision of the Hon