Recovering excess payments from retirees without misrepresentation violates principles of natural justice.

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR ORAL ORDER

3 11-12-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

2. The instant writ application has been filed for the following reliefs:-

(i) For quashing the letter dated 03.02.2024 issued by the Respondent No.5 and contained in letter no.310 dated 03.02.2024, whereby and whereunder the Respondent No.5 has been pleased to request the Respondent No.6 to recover the amount of Rs.4,17,984/- from the pensionary benefits of the petitioner as fixed by the office of the Accountant General, Bihar, Patna vide memo no. 03/ PEN171123033181/ 202311031719PO dated 18.12.2023 on the ground that in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and others vs. Rafiq Mashi (White Washer) since reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 as well as in the case of Thomas Daniel vs. State of Kerala and others, there shall be no recovery from a retired government servant.

(ii) For directing the respondent authorities to refund the amount of Rs.4,17,984/- with penal interest which was illegally deducted by the Respondent No.6 on the request made by the Respondent No.5 from the pensionary benefits of the petitioner as fixed by the office of the Accountant General, Bihar, Patna.

(iii) For quashing the office order contained in memo no.2666 dated 18.10.2023 issued under the signature of the Respondent No.5, whereby and whereunder the salary of the petitioner in view of the objection raised by the Respondent No.9 as also pursuant to the memo no.356 dated 18.01.2022, issued by the department that the benefits of Finance Department Resolution No.3972 dated 12.05.2016 and 7577 dated 23.09.2016 is not applicable to the petitioner since the services of the petitioner was regularized after

01.01.1996.

(iv) For directing the respondent authorities to fix/revise the pensionary benefits of the petitioner on the basis of last pay drawn by the petitioner.

(v) For any other relief(s) to which the petitioner is found entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the case.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was granted pension in accordance with the last pay drawn certificate issued by the Department. However, without adhering to the principles of natural justice or the procedures recognized in service jurisprudence, Rs. 4,17,984/- has been recovered from the petitioner’s pension/gratuity.

3. It has next been submitted that the petitioner has not made any misrepresentation with respect to the grant of the pay scale, on the basis of which, his pension was fixed after superannuation. Merely on the objections raised by the Office of the Accountant General vide letter No. 165 dated 26.04.2023, a copy of which was also sent to the petitioner vide memo No. PEN-03-166 dated 26.04.2023, the increments allowed to the petitioner during the service period were modified. Based on such modifications, the recovery in question was directed. It is the case of the petitioner that, without providing any opportunity of appropriate hearing with respect to the pension fixation and the recovery, the impugned orders were passed, and the recovery of the said amount was made from his pension/gratuity, as would be evident from the letter dated 28.02.2024, appended to the writ application as Annexure 10/1.

4. It is next submitted that the action of the authorities in effecting recovery is in contravention of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Thomas Daniel vs. State of Kerala & Ors., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 536 The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment is extracted below:

“1