Ms Indra vs The Govt Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr.
- Court
- Delhi High Court
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
Reserved on: 28 March, 2026.
th
Pronounced on: 26 May, 2026.
th
Uploaded on: 27 May, 2026.
+ W.P.(C) 4502/2021 & CM APPL. 13760/2021
MS INDRA .....Petitioner
Through: Ch. Rabindra Singh, Mr. Paras
Aggarwal and Ms. Ekta Singh,
Advocates.
versus
THE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, SC for
GNCTD with Mr. Mohnish Sehrawat,
Ms. Aliza Alam, Advocates for R-1.
Mr. Rajiv Kapur, SC for SBI, Mr.
Akshit Kapur, AOR, Ms. Riya Sood,
Advocate for SBI.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV NARULA, J.:
1. This writ petition is filed by a widow who is in receipt of family
pension. Her grievance arises out of deductions effected from that pension
towards recovery of what the Respondents term as excess payment. Her case
is that the alleged excess did not arise from any misrepresentation,
concealment or other act on her part, but from the Respondents’ own
processing of the pension. She further states that the recovery was initiated
unilaterally, without prior notice or disclosure of the basis on which it was
sought to be made, and that the deductions have operated with particular
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 4502/2021 Page 1 of 16
Dgitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:27.05.2026
15:12:43
severity because they are being made from family pension.
Factual background
2. The Petitioner’s husband, late Sh. Shiv Narayan, entered government
th th
service on 15 October, 1980 as an LDC. He died in harness on 6 June,
2003 while serving as a UDC in the Election Department under the SDM,
South-West Delhi, at the DC Office, Kapashera, New Delhi.
3. Following his death, family pension was sanctioned in favour of the
Petitioner through PPO No. 69674-03-0121-1 issued by PAO No. 1,
Government of NCT of Delhi, to be disbursed through the State Bank of
India, Kapashera Branch. The PPO record shows that the Petitioner was
th
entitled to family pension at the enhanced rate of Rs. 2,650 from 7 June,
th th
2003 to 6 June, 2010, and thereafter at the normal rate of Rs. 1,590 from 7
June, 2010 till death or remarriage, whichever occurred earlier.
4. The matter took a turn when the Petitioner noticed a substantial
reduction in the pension credited to her account. Upon enquiry, she was
th
furnished a copy of letter No. CPPC/MISC/2017/1530 dated 4 May, 2017
issued by SBI’s Centralised Pension Processing Centre to the Kapashera
Branch. That communication stated that excess pension had been paid on
account of a “wrong ENHANCE DATE” and quantified the excess at Rs.
2,51,616. It also recorded that recovery had been fed in the pension software
at the rate of Rs. 3,200 per month and asked the branch to recover the
amount from the pensioner and inform her accordingly.
5. The May 2017 slip also reflects the “Enhanced End Date of Family”
th
as 6 June, 2013, which does not match the PPO, under which the enhanced-
th
rate period ended on 6 June, 2010. This inconsistency in the bank-
generated record is a circumstance to which the Court will revert in the later
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 4502/2021 Page 2 of 16
Dgitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:27.05.2026
15:12:43
part of this judgment.
th
6. SBI’s case is that a revised PPO dated 4 October, 2019 was
subsequently received from the Central Pension Accounting Office,
following which the Petitioner’s pension was recalculated, the alleged
excess payment was recomputed at Rs. 3,60,279/-. SBI states that the
monthly recovery was revised to Rs. 4,399/-, and its records reflect recovery
th
through 82 instalments, proposed to continue up to 29 February, 2024. The
later pension slips and the deduction-history printout do show deductions of
Rs. 4,399/- in November 2019 and January 2021, and also reflect the revised
recovery entry on which SBI places reliance.
rd
7. The Petitioner thereafter caused a legal notice dated 3 February,
th
2021 to be issued to PAO No. 1 and SBI. PAO No. 1 replied on 11
February, 2021, stating that it had no role in the disbursal of pension or in
the impugned recovery and that the matter fell within the domain of the
pension-disbursing bank. No substantive reply from SBI to that notice has
been placed on record by the Petitioner.
8. The Petitioner’s case, in essence, is that any excess payment, if made,
arose entirely from the Respondents’ own error in processing the pension
and not from any act, omission, misrepresentation or concealment on her
part. She furnished no false information and played no role in the alleged
overpayment. Her further case is that the recovery from family pension was
commenced unilaterally, without prior notice, and has operated with serious
hardship upon a widow surviving on limited means.
9. The Petitioner further states that, as a senior citizen dependent on
family pension, the deductions have placed her under serious financial
strain, compelled her to raise loans, and left her struggling to maintain
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 4502/2021 Page 3 of 16
Dgitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:27.05.2026
15:12:43
herself with dignity.
10. As regards the alleged undertaking relied upon by SBI, the
Petitioner’s case is that her signatures were obtained on routine papers when
the family pension formalities were being completed; that she did not
consciously furnish any undertaking authorising recovery of future excess;
and that, in any event, such a document cannot displace the equitable
principles which restrain recovery from retirees or pensioners where the
excess payment has arisen without fault on their part.
11. SBI, in response, does not dispute that excess payment was made. Its
case is that the error surfaced during internal audit and was later reflected in
a further recalculation of pension. According to SBI, the Petitioner
continued to receive family pension beyond what the system ought to have
permitted, first because of the wrong enhancement date and later on account
th
of revised pension processing following the 7 CPC exercise. On that basis,
SBI submits that it was bound to recover the excess and restore the amount
to the Government Treasury.
12. It is further submitted that the recovery was not effected in one lump
sum but through instalments. Initially, a monthly deduction of Rs. 3,200 was
made from May 2017. Later, upon recalculation, the monthly deduction was
revised to Rs. 4,399. It also relies on the pension slips and the software-
generated recovery history to show that the recovery mechanism was
system-driven and stood reflected in the pension account.
th
13. The bank’s principal legal plank, however, is the undertaking dated 5
January, 2004, bearing the Petitioner’s signature as “Indra”, by which the
signatory agrees to refund, or permit adjustment of, any amount not due. SBI
states that this undertaking is sufficient in law to sustain the recovery and
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 4502/2021 Page 4 of 16
Dgitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:27.05.2026
15:12:43
takes the case outside the line of authority which restrains recovery on
equitable considerations.
th
14. SBI also relies on the RBI circular dated 17 March, 2016 and the
st
Master Circular dated 1 July, 2017 governing disbursement of Government
pension through agency banks. The substance of those circulars is that
excess or wrong payment made to a pensioner may first be adjusted against
the credit available in the account and, if that is insufficient, may be
recovered from future pension in instalments, ordinarily up to one-third of
the net pension plus relief, unless the pensioner gives written consent for a
higher instalment. The circulars also contemplate that the pensioner be
informed of the details of the overpayment and the mode of recovery.
15. On the strength of these materials, SBI submits that the Petitioner
cannot invoke equity to resist repayment of money which was not lawfully
due to her. It contends that the payments were made from Government
funds, the excess came to light upon audit and recalculation, the recovery
was structured through instalments, and the undertaking independently
authorises such recovery. It is on that footing that SBI places reliance on
1
Chandi Prasad Uniyal & Ors. v. State of Uttranchal , High Court of
2
Punjab and Haryana & Ors. v. Jagdev Singh and Union of India & Ors.
3
v. Sujatha Vedachalam (Smt) and Anr.
16. Respondent No. 1, Government of NCT of Delhi, takes a narrower
position. Its case is that, while it issued the PPO, it had no role in the actual
disbursal of family pension or in the impugned recovery. It further relies on
th
the Office Memorandum dated 16 May, 2018, issued by the Central
1
(2012) 8 SCC 417
2
(2016) 14 SCC 267
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 4502/2021 Page 5 of 16
Dgitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:27.05.2026
15:12:43
Pension Accounting Office, which provides the uniform procedure for
agency banks to handle excess pension payments and prohibits them from
withholding pensions during recovery proceedings. It also points out that the
rd
school concerned stated, by letter dated 3 March, 2022, that no deduction
or recovery had been made by the school as per its record. On that basis,
Respondent No. 1 seeks dismissal of the writ petition qua itself.
17. The Petitioner does not dispute that the enhanced-rate family pension
was available only up to a fixed terminal date under the PPO. Nor does SBI
th
dispute that the PPO fixed that date as 6 June, 2010. The real controversy,
therefore, concerns the legal consequences that follow once excess payment,
said to have arisen from an error in pension processing, is later detected in a
case of this kind.
18. Another feature of the record also deserves notice. The
th
contemporaneous recovery letter dated 4 May, 2017 attributes the excess
payment specifically to a “wrong ENHANCE DATE”. The later affidavit
filed by the bank furnishes a fuller explanatory account linked to internal
audit, revised pension processing, and subsequent recalculation. Whether
that later account merely elaborates the same underlying error or introduces
a materially different basis for recovery is a question that requires careful
examination.
19. The Court is not presently concerned with any dispute as to whether
the Petitioner’s entitlement under the PPO was confined to an enhanced-rate
period of limited duration. That position is not in dispute. The questions that
arise for consideration concern whether there was any fault on the
Petitioner’s part, the requirement of prior notice, the effect of the alleged
3
(2000) 9 SCC 187
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 4502/2021 Page 6 of 16
Dgitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:27.05.2026
15:12:43
undertaking, the extent of the Bank’s authority to recover amounts from a
family pensioner, and the relief that should follow in the facts of the case.
Points for determination
20. In that background, the following issues arise for determination:
(i) Whether the excess payment made to the Petitioner arose from any
misrepresentation, concealment or other positive act on her part, or whether
it arose entirely from error at the level of pension processing, system entries,
revision or recalculation by the Respondents.
th
(ii) What is the effect of the undertaking dated 5 January, 2004 relied
upon by SBI and, more particularly, whether that document, on its terms and
in the circumstances in which it was obtained, is sufficient in law to sustain
recovery from the Petitioner’s family pension notwithstanding the equitable
limitations recognised in the case law.
(iii) Whether the recovery initiated in May 2017 and revised in November
2019 was preceded by adequate notice to the Petitioner and disclosure of the
basis, details and mode of recovery, and, if not, what consequence follows.
(iv) Whether, having regard to the nature of the pension involved, the long
period over which the alleged excess was paid, the status of the Petitioner as
a family pensioner, and the factual setting disclosed by the record, the
recovery is liable to be interdicted on principles of fairness, equity and
settled service jurisprudence.
(v) Whether Respondent No. 1 has any surviving substantive role or
liability in the matter beyond the issuance of the PPO.
(vi) Depending on the answers to the above, whether the Petitioner is
entitled merely to stoppage of further recovery, or also to refund of the
amounts already deducted, and if so, on what terms.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 4502/2021 Page 7 of 16
Dgitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:27.05.2026
15:12:43
Discussion and reasons
21. At the outset, it is necessary to separate three distinct aspects of the
matter. The first is the Petitioner’s entitlement under the PPO. The second is
the fact of overpayment. The third is the Respondents’ authority in law to
recover such overpayment in the circumstances of this case. The first aspect
is not in dispute. Under the PPO, the Petitioner was entitled to enhanced
th th
family pension at the rate of Rs. 2,650 from 7 June, 2003 to 6 June, 2010,
th
and thereafter to normal family pension at the rate of Rs. 1,590 from 7
June, 2010 onwards.
22. The Petitioner does not and cannot contend that the PPO entitled her
to indefinitely receive family pension at the enhanced rate. The real
controversy lies in the cause of that overpayment, the manner in which the
Respondents proceeded once it was detected, and whether the recovery now
impugned can be sustained in law on the facts presented.
23. As regards the cause of the overpayment, the contemporaneous record
th
points in a single direction. The bank’s letter dated 4 May, 2017, which
triggered the recovery process, does not attribute the excess to any fraud,
concealment or false declaration on the Petitioner’s part. It attributes the
excess to one cause alone: “wrong ENHANCE DATE”. The same
communication quantifies the excess at Rs. 2,51,616 and records that
recovery has been fed into the pension software at the rate of Rs. 3,200 per
month.
24. The pension slips placed on record by the Petitioner are consistent
with that position. The pension slip for May 2017 reflects the “Enhanced
th
End Date of Family” as 6 June, 2013, even though the PPO confined the
th
enhanced-rate period to 6 June, 2010. This inconsistency bears directly on
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 4502/2021 Page 8 of 16
Dgitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:27.05.2026
15:12:43
the genesis of the overpayment. It is traceable, not to any act or omission of
the Petitioner, but to the manner in which the pension was processed and
recorded in the bank’s system.
25. SBI’s subsequent explanation in its affidavit, referring to internal
th
audit, 7 CPC revision and recalculation, may explain how the initial figure
of Rs. 2,51,616 was later revised to Rs. 3,60,279. It does not, however, alter
the basic character of the error. Whether quantified at the earlier or later
figure, the excess arose because of the way in which pension was computed
and revised at the bank’s end. The later pension records relied upon by SBI,
which show recalculation and a revised recovery entry, likewise point only
to correction of an institutional mistake, and do not implicate the Petitioner
in any wrongdoing.
26. There is nothing on record to suggest that the Petitioner knew, or
ought reasonably to have known, that she was receiving amounts beyond her
lawful entitlement. The Petitioner, a family pensioner, received the amounts
credited in her account in the ordinary course. She had no role in
configuring the software or dates, and had no independent means of
checking the internal calculations. Significantly, the pension slips
th
themselves reflected the “Enhanced End Date of Family” as 6 June, 2013.
In such a situation, it would not be reasonable to attribute to her any
knowledge of an underlying processing error or to expect her to detect and
question the same.
27. That does not, by itself, conclude the matter. SBI is right in
contending, as a general proposition, that public money paid by mistake is
ordinarily recoverable and that an employer is not forever precluded from
reclaiming what was not due. The law does not treat every erroneous
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 4502/2021 Page 9 of 16
Dgitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:27.05.2026
15:12:43
disbursement of public funds as irrecoverable merely because the mistake
originated with the authority. At the same time, the existence of a power to
recover is distinct from the permissible exercise of that power where there is
no fault on the part of the recipient, where a long period has elapsed, where
no prior notice is given, and where recovery is sought from a person in a
position of financial vulnerability.
4
28. In Syed Abdul Qadir & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors. , the Supreme
Court dealt with excess payment caused by the employer’s erroneous
understanding of the applicable rules. The beneficiaries had neither
misrepresented nor acted fraudulently. Holding that the mistake lay with the
authorities, the Court declined to permit recovery, particularly in the case of
persons who had retired or were on the verge of retirement. The decision
proceeds on the principle that where excess payment arises without fault on
the part of the recipient, and where recovery would result in undue hardship,
equitable considerations may preclude recovery.
29. The position was later crystallised in State of Punjab v. Rafiq
5
Masih . After reviewing the earlier authorities, the Supreme Court identified
categories of cases in which recovery would be impermissible in law.
Among them are recovery from retired employees; recovery where the
excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years before the
order of recovery; and cases in which the recovery would be so harsh or
arbitrary that it outweighs the employer’s right to recoup the excess. Those
categories are grounded in fairness and hardship and are not to be applied
mechanically, but they do lay down clear outer limits.
4
(2009) 3 SCC 475
5
(2015) 4 SCC 334
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 4502/2021 Page 10 of 16
Dgitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:27.05.2026
15:12:43
30. Seen through that lens, the present case falls squarely within the
protective zone identified in Rafiq Masih . The Petitioner is not a serving
employee. She is a family pensioner. On SBI’s own showing, the
overpayment continued for several years before any recovery was initiated
in 2017. When recovery was eventually commenced, it was not from a
running salary, but from the limited family pension payable to a widow.
Although Rafiq Masih speaks of “retired employees”, the rationale applies
with equal, if not greater, force to a family pensioner such as the Petitioner.
6
31. The Supreme Court in Thomas Daniel v. State of Kerala & Ors.
carried the same approach expressly into the pensionary context. The Court
reiterated that where excess payment has not been induced by fraud or
misrepresentation on the part of the recipient, but is the result of the
employer’s own mistake, recovery does not follow as a matter of course. In
doing so, the Court relied upon the earlier decision in B.J. Akkara v.
7
Government of India , which recognised that pensioners stand on a more
vulnerable footing than serving employees, that their financial arrangements
are often structured around long-standing receipts, and that recovery of
excess pension after prolonged payment may inflict disproportionate
hardship.
32. The Petitioner’s case is, in fact, on an even stronger footing. She is
not merely a retired employee; she is a widow drawing family pension. The
material on record shows that after deduction of Rs. 4,399 per month, the
amount left to her was Rs. 8,799. The rejoinder and written submissions
describe the hardship caused by such deductions to a senior citizen
6
2022 SCC OnLine SC 536
7
(2006) 11 SCC 709
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 4502/2021 Page 11 of 16
Dgitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:27.05.2026
15:12:43
dependent primarily on family pension. The Court’s conclusion does not rest
on sympathy. But when equitable jurisdiction is invoked in the setting of
pensionary recovery, the personal situation of the recipient is a relevant and
legitimate consideration.
33. SBI’s first answer to this line of authority cited above is founded on
the RBI/CPAO framework. Those circulars do contemplate that excess or
wrong payments may be recovered and permit recovery by instalments,
ordinarily up to one-third of the net pension plus relief, unless the pensioner
voluntarily agrees to a higher instalment. To that extent, SBI is correct in
saying that recovery from pension is not alien to the administrative scheme,
and the instalments adopted here broadly conform to the one-third ceiling.
34. That, however, is only part of the picture. The circulars in question
are administrative instructions which regulate the procedure for dealing with
overpayments. They cannot be read as conferring an unfettered right to
recover in every case, or as overriding binding precedent under Article 141
of the Constitution. Nor do they dilute the equitable limitations recognised
in Syed Abdul Qadir , Rafiq Masih and Thomas Daniel . Significantly, the
RBI/CPAO framework itself proceeds on the premise that the pensioner will
be informed of the details of the overpayment and the proposed mode of
recovery, thereby acknowledging that even where recovery is otherwise
permissible, it must be effected fairly.
35. On that aspect, the record is unsatisfactory from SBI’s side. The
th
bank’s letter dated 4 May, 2017 is not a notice issued to the Petitioner. It is
an internal communication from the CPPC to the branch. In substance, it
records that the recovery has been fed into the pension software and directs
the branch to effect recovery and inform the pensioner accordingly. This
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 4502/2021 Page 12 of 16
Dgitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:27.05.2026
15:12:43
indicates that the letter was not the act of informing the Petitioner. The
Court does not find any material to show that, prior to commencement of
deductions, the Petitioner was furnished with the details of the alleged
overpayment, the basis of its computation, or the proposed mode of
recovery.
36. This omission has both procedural and substantive implications.
Procedurally, recovery from pension without prior communication of the
basis and particulars of the proposed recovery offends elementary fairness.
Substantively, the absence of timely notice weakens any attempt to attribute
knowledge of overpayment to the Petitioner, and reinforces the application
of the protective principles set out in Rafiq Masih and Thomas Daniel .
Courts have repeatedly underscored that adverse financial re-fixation,
particularly in pension matters, should ordinarily be preceded by notice so
that the affected person has an opportunity to contest the claim or
demonstrate hardship.
th
37. SBI further relies upon the undertaking dated 5 January, 2004. The
document placed on record is a signed form by which the signatory agrees to
refund, or permit adjustment of, any amount not actually due. The question,
however, is whether such an undertaking, having regard to its terms and the
circumstances of the case, is sufficient in law to sustain the impugned
recovery.
38. For this purpose, SBI seeks to derive support from Jagdev Singh . In
that case, the Supreme Court held that the usual protection against recovery
from a retired employee would not apply where the employee had, while
opting for a revised pay scale, specifically furnished an undertaking to
refund any excess if found payable on re-fixation. The reasoning in Jagdev
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 4502/2021 Page 13 of 16
Dgitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:27.05.2026
15:12:43
Singh rests on a conscious, specific undertaking linked to a defined benefit
and furnished in circumstances where the employee knew that future re-
fixation might result in downwards adjustment.
39. The present case stands on a materially different footing. Firstly, the
undertaking relied upon here is a standard-form bank document obtained at
the time of commencement of family pension in January 2004. It was not
furnished while opting into a revised pay structure, nor was it tied to any
particular re-fixation exercise or choice between competing benefits. It
formed part of routine documentation for starting pension disbursal.
40. Secondly, the Petitioner is not a serving employee making an election
about pay scales or benefits. She is the widow of the deceased employee and
a recipient of family pension. Thirdly, even if the undertaking is taken at
face value, it cannot be read in isolation from the rest of the record. The
bank’s own documents show that the error lay in its handling of the
enhancement period and that overpayment continued for years. There is
nothing to suggest that the Petitioner was informed, contemporaneously with
the discovery of error, that a mistake had occurred, or that large sums were
now sought to be recovered from her family pension.
41. Fourthly, in Jagdev Singh, the respondent was a senior judicial
officer; here, the Petitioner’s late husband was a Class III (Group C)
employee, a category expressly noticed in Rafiq Masih as warranting
enhanced protection against recovery. Lastly, while the error in Jagdev
Singh was detected within a comparatively short time, the alleged
overpayment here persisted for about seven years before recovery
commenced.
42. SBI’s reliance on Chandi Prasad also must be seen in its proper
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 4502/2021 Page 14 of 16
Dgitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:27.05.2026
15:12:43
perspective. That decision affirms the general principle that excess public
money, if paid out by mistake, is in the ordinary course recoverable. The
present case, however, arises in a more specific setting: a long-standing
overpayment of family pension, arising without fault on the Petitioner’s part,
continuing for several years before recovery was commenced, and affecting
the widow of a deceased Class III (Group C) employee.
43. The position that emerges may be summarised thus. The overpayment
in the present case arose from an error in pension processing at the bank’s
end. There is no material to suggest fraud, misrepresentation or concealment
by the Petitioner. The overpayment continued for years before recovery was
initiated and recovery was then made from family pension payable to a
widow. Prior notice, giving particulars of the overpayment and the proposed
mode of recovery, is not shown. The generic undertaking relied upon by
SBI, obtained at the commencement of family pension, does not, in these
facts, suffice to displace the equitable restraint recognised by the Supreme
Court. The case is therefore governed by the principles laid down in Syed
Abdul Qadir , Rafiq Masih and Thomas Daniel , and falls outside the
narrower factual situation considered in Jagdev Singh .
44. Respondent No. 1 stands on a different footing. The record indicates
that PAO No. 1 issued the PPO, but did not itself effect or direct the
th
impugned recovery. The letter dated 11 February 2021 from PAO No. 1
rd
and the communication dated 3 March 2022 from the school both support
that position. No operative recovery-related direction is therefore called for
against Respondent No. 1, save that any future correction in the PPO or
related pension records, if occasion arises, shall be carried out strictly in
accordance with law and after due notice to the Petitioner.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 4502/2021 Page 15 of 16
Dgitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:27.05.2026
15:12:43
Relief
45. In view of the foregoing discussion, the impugned recovery is found
to be legally unsustainable. The Petitioner is consequently entitled both to
cessation of further recovery and to refund of the amounts already deducted
from her family pension.
46. The writ petition is accordingly allowed in the following terms:
46.1 The recovery effected by Respondent No. 2 from the Petitioner’s
family pension, including the recovery initiated in May 2017 and the
subsequent revised recovery, is hereby set aside.
46.2 Respondent No. 2 shall refund to the Petitioner the amounts already
recovered from her family pension pursuant to the impugned recovery.
46.3 The refund shall be made within eight weeks from today together with
simple interest at 6% per annum, computed from the date of each deduction
until the date of actual payment.
46.4 No further recovery shall be effected from the Petitioner’s family
pension on the basis of the impugned overpayment entries.
47. Disposed of along with pending applications.
SANJEEV NARULA, J
MAY 26, 2026/ab
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 4502/2021 Page 16 of 16
Dgitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:27.05.2026
15:12:43