225 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 13.05.2026 THE MANAGER, CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, NICOLSON ROAD, AMBALA CANTT. AND ANOTHER ........Petitioners VERSUS VED PARKASH CHAWLA AND OTHERS ........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA Present: Mr. Deepak Jindal, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Shailender Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.1.

Mr. Pankaj Gupta, Senior Panel Counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4-UOI. (joined through V.C.).

***

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (Oral)

1. The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 09.10.2019 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal”) in OA No.060/1506/2018, whereby the impugned order of recovery dated 22.11.2018 (Annexure A-7) sought to be effected from respondent No.1 on account of excess payment from his pension in installments has been set aside.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner-Bank submits that the respondent No.4 had passed a Pension Payment Order dated 02.06.2015 prescribing the pension of respondent No.1 as Rs.8608/- per month to be paid to him, but while feeding the said data into the computer, the same was wrongly entered as Rs.12913/-.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that from day one, respondent No.1 knew that he was receiving pension in excess of his entitlement, keeping in view the fact that the correct entitlement was mentioned in the Pension Payment Order, yet respondent No.1 continued to accept the pension beyond his entitlement.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that once payment in excess of entitlement was accepted by the respondent No.1 with due knowledge, the same is liable to be recovered.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that once, there was no fraud played on their part and the mistake was on the part of the petitioner-Bank itself to pay the pension more than the entitlement of respondent No.1 later, the recipient cannot be troubled by seeking recovery of the excess amount paid. Even as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in State of Punjab and others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc., 2015(1) S.C.T., 195, no recovery can be done from a Class III and class IV (Group ‘C’ and ‘D’) employees or from the retired employees or employees who are due to retire within one year of the order of recovery. Further even no recovery can be made from an employee who continues to get excess payment for a period in excess of five years before the same was withdrawn. Reliance is placed upon Paragraph No.12 of the said judgment.

6. Further, reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the respondent upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.7115 of 2010 titled as Thomas Daniel versus State of Kerala and others, decided on 02.05.2022, to contend that where an employee was not at fault with regard to the excess payment of emoluments or allowance given to the employee, the same cannot be recovered later on merely because the employer had wrongly calculated the pay/allowance as such a recovery would cause hardships to the employee concerned.

7. Learned counsel for the respondents further argues that no details have been furnished as to how the total amount sought to be recovered from respondent No.1 has been calculated and, therefore, on this account, the recovery sought to be effected from respondent No.1, is incorrect.

8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the present case with their able assistance.

9. In the present case, the question is whether the excess payment made to respondent No.1 was within his knowledge or not and whether, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the petitioners can be permitted to recover the excess amount paid.

10. It is a conceded position that the respondent-Department had issued a Pension Payment Order in the