CWP No. 24646 of 2017

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

(220)

CWP No. 24646 of 2017

Date of Decision : 09.05.2022

Rama Rani

...Petitioner

Versus

Union of India and others

...Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI

Present:

Mr. Vipan Kumar, Advocate for

Mr. Ravi Malhotra, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Sandeep Bhatia, Advocate for the respondent-UOI.

***

Harsimran Singh Sethi J. (Oral)

The present petition has been filed for quashing the order dated

16.03.2013 (Annexure P-2) by which, the respondents decided to recover an

excess amount of pension paid to the petitioner amounting to `2,46,918/-.

Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the late husband

of the petitioner was working as a Havildar in the Boarder Security Force

and unfortunately, died while in service on 18.05.2004, after which the

petitioner was granted the family pension. The family pension, which was

initially granted to the petition was being revised from time to time and the

petitioner was being paid revised pension but, vide order dated 16.03.2013

(Annexure P-2), the said pension was found to be incorrectly assessed and

the respondents sought to recover a sum of `2,46,918/- paid to the

KANCHAN

2022.05.10 18:21

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

CWP No. 24646 of 2017

2

petitioner. The reason for the recovery was that the excess pension was paid

due to the wrong data fed in the system. The said order of recovery is under

challenge in the present petition.

After notice of motion, the respondents have filed the reply. In

the reply, the respondents have mentioned that the petitioner was granted

the benefits after the death of her husband but as the pension was being paid

by way of Centralized Pension Processing Centre while revising the pension

of the petitioner, the wrong data was fed due to which, the petitioner

continued getting a higher pension than her entitlement, which excess

amount, being a public money, is being recovery, which is perfectly valid

and legal.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone

through the record with their able assistance.

In the present case, the petitioner is a family pensioner.

Nothing has come on record to show that the petitioner played any role in

getting the excess pension rather, the respondents have conceded the fact

that it was due to wrong data fed in the computer, the petitioner was paid

the excess amount. That being so, petitioner cannot be blamed/ petitioner is

not at fault and she has not mislead the respondents so as to secure higher

amount of pension.

The question whether, the excess payment can be recovered is

settled by 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. The

relevant paragraph 12 of the said judgment is as under :-

“12. It is not possible to postulate all situations of

KANCHAN

2022.05.10 18:21

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

CWP No. 24646 of 2017

3

hardship, which would govern employees on the issue of

recovery, where payments have mistakenly been made by the

employer, in excess of their entitlement. Be that as it may,

based on the decisions referred to herein above, we may, as a

ready reference, summarise the following few situations,

wherein recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible

in law:-

(i) Recovery from employees belonging to Class-III and

Class-IV service (or Group 'C' and Group 'D' service).

(ii) Recovery from retired employees, or employees

who are due to retire within one year, of the order of

recovery.

(iii) Recovery from employees, when the excess

payment has been made for a period in excess of five

years, before the order of recovery is issued.

(iv) Recovery in cases where an employee has

wrongfully been required to discharge duties of a

higher post, and has been paid accordingly, even

though he should have ri