An Aadhaar date-of-birth discrepancy alone cannot justify stopping family pension or recovery without inquiry.

The applicant, widow of a railway employee, had been receiving family pension under a PPO that recorded her year of birth as 1930.

The State Bank of India stopped her pension and initiated recovery after she submitted an Aadhaar Card showing a different date of birth.

The railway authorities stated that they had neither disputed her identity nor directed the Bank to stop payment.

The applicant challenged the Bank’s order dated 5 September 2023 and sought restoration of pension and refund of amounts recovered.

1. Whether the Bank could stop the applicant’s family pension and initiate recovery solely because the date of birth in her Aadhaar Card differed from that in the PPO.

2. Whether recovery was impermissible in the circumstances, given the absence of fraud or misrepresentation by the applicant and the hardship its enforcement would cause.

Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, provides the basis for an application before the Tribunal.

In State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), (2015) 4 SCC 334, the Supreme Court identified categories in which recovery of mistaken excess payments would be impermissible, including cases where recovery would be iniquitous, harsh, or arbitrary and would outweigh the employer’s right to recover.

The Tribunal applied those equitable principles to the applicant’s family-pension case, particularly in light of her age and the absence of fraud or misrepresentation.

The PPO and family register recorded the applicant’s year of birth as 1930, while the pension was stopped because her subsequently submitted Aadhaar Card contained a different date of birth.

The Tribunal held that this discrepancy alone did not justify stopping pension or initiating recovery.

The Bank should have referred the discrepancy to the railway authorities and given the applicant an opportunity to explain it; the railway authorities had not directed suspension of pension or disputed her identity.

Given the applicant’s age and the absence of any allegation of fraud or misrepresentation, the Tribunal found the recovery inequitable and applied the principles in Rafiq Masih.

It directed the respondents to restore the applicant’s family pension, stop any recovery already initiated, and refund any amount recovered within three months of receiving a certified copy of the order.

If the refund was not made within that period, the applicant would be entitled to interest at the GPF rate from the end of the three-month period until payment.

No costs were awarded.