Dual pension claims through non-disclosure of prior employment constitute fraud, justifying recovery of excess payments.

The Petitioner was employed at Poyasha Pvt. Ltd. from 1978 to 1994, which closed down.

In 1997, he joined a second company, A.S. Moloobhoy and Sons.

While still in the second employment, he applied for and began receiving "early pension" related to his first employment.

Upon retiring from the second job in 2009, he submitted a second pension form (Form 10-D), leaving Clause 16 (regarding existing pensions) blank.

This resulted in the Petitioner drawing dual pensions simultaneously.

Upon discovering this non-disclosure, the Respondent (EPFO) halted payments to recover the excess amount of ₹88,727/-.

Whether a member of the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995 is entitled to draw dual pensions for two distinct periods of service instead of clubbing them.

Whether the recovery of excess pension paid due to misrepresentation is permissible in the case of a senior citizen.

The court applied Clause 12 and 14 of the Employees Pension Scheme (EPS), 1995, which stipulates that an employee who leaves service before superannuation should obtain a "Scheme Certificate" to carry forward service periods to a subsequent employer for a single consolidated pension.

The court also referenced the "White Washer" principle from *State of Punjab & Ors. v. Rafiq Masih*, which generally prohibits recovery from retired employees.

The court balanced the "White Washer" principle against *Kishore Samrite v. State of Uttar Pradesh* and *Bhaskar Laxman Jadhav v. Karamveer Kakasaheb Wagh Education Society*, which mandate strict action against litigants who approach the court with "unclean hands" or commit fraud.

The court observed that the Petitioner committed a systematic act of defrauding the State Exchequer by suppressing his employment status while applying for a second pension.

Under EPS 1995, the Petitioner ought to have sought a ‘Scheme Certificate’ to club his services rather than filing a fresh Form 10-D that concealed his prior pension.

The court distinguished this case from standard recovery cases because the excess payment was not a result of departmental error, but active misrepresentation by the Petitioner.

Relying on the Madras High Court precedent in *A. Jagadeeswaran*, the court noted that while dual pension is illegal, the harshness of recovery can be mitigated for senior citizens.

However, in view of the Petitioner’s age (70 years) and his expression of remorse, the Court adjusted the equities.

The Court directed the EPFO to deduct the principal recovery amount (₹88,727/-) from the Petitioner’s accumulated arrears (₹1,66,432/-) without charging interest.

The Respondents were ordered to recalculate the single consolidated pension by clubbing both service periods and to resume monthly payments effective April 2026.