Recovery of excess payment from a retired employee's pension is impermissible without the pensioner's express written consent or an undertaking, and any such action without prior notice and a fair opportunity of hearing violates the principles of natural justice and applicable service rules.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral)

1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer for issuance of an appropriate writ or order in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 16.11.2022 (Annexure P-4) which upheld the recovery of an amount of ₹6,63,688/- from the petitioner's pension with further directions to pay the recovered amount to the petitioner with interest @ 12% p.a.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

2. Briefly stated, the facts are that the petitioner retired from the post of Executive Officer from the Municipal Council, Kaithal (Respondent No. 3) on attaining the age of superannuation on 29.02.2016. Upon retirement, the petitioner was issued a Pension Payment Order (PPO) No. 6386 by the Director, Urban Local Bodies, Haryana (Respondent No. 2) vide letter dated 09.08.2016, sanctioning his pension with effect from 01.03.2016. A copy of the PPO was sent to the Punjab National Bank, Kaithal (Respondent No. 4), where the petitioner held his pension account.

3. In the year 2019, the respondent authorities, on their own motion, revised the petitioner's pension with effect from 01.03.2016. This revision was undertaken under the Haryana Civil Services (Revised Pension) Part-I Rules, 2017, read with Office Memorandum dated 10.01.2018 and Office Memo dated 27.05.2019. However, neither any calculations for this revision were provided to the petitioner, nor did he make any representation inducing the authorities to pay any alleged excess amount. Thus, the revision was a unilateral act of the respondents. Subsequently, on 31.03.2021, an amount of ₹6,63,688/- was deducted from the petitioner's personal bank account with Respondent No. 4 Bank. The transaction was remarked as ‘Recovery of Excess Pension.’ This recovery was effected without any prior notice, show-cause, or opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid action, the petitioner issued a legal notice-cum-representation dated 22.06.2022 (Annexure P-2) to Respondent No. 2, requesting the refund of the recovered amount. Upon receiving no response, the petitioner approached this Court by way of CWP No. 18207 of 2022. Vide order dated 22.08.2022 (Annexure P-3), this Court disposed of the said writ petition with a direction to Respondent No. 2 to decide the petitioner's representation by passing a speaking order within eight weeks.

5. In purported compliance with the aforesaid direction, Respondent No. 2 passed the impugned order/endorsement dated 16.11.2022 (Annexure P-4) whereby the petitioner's claim for refund was rejected. The respondent authority justified the recovery by stating that due to a ‘clerical error,’ the petitioner had been inadvertently paid two Dearness Allowances (DA), one on the revised pension and another on the unrevised pension, from April 2019 to February 2021, amounting to an excess payment of ₹28,856/- per month. The impugned order further insinuated that the petitioner, being an educated person, must have been aware that he has received an excess payment. Being aggrieved by the impugned order (Annexure P-4), the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

CONTENTIONS

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner