Erroneous Pension Fixation Due to Software Error Cannot Justify Recovery From Retiree After Significant Delay

The Respondent, an 80-year-old retired Senior Accounts Officer, had his pension fixed at Rs. 16,307 during the 6th CPC revision in 2013.

Years later, the Review Applicants (Union of India) sought to reduce the pension to Rs. 7,215 and initiate recovery, claiming the original fixation was a clerical/software error.

The Tribunal, in its judgment dated 24.02.2025, set aside the recovery and ordered the restoration of the higher pension.

The Applicants filed a Review Application (R.A.) along with a Miscellaneous Application (M.A.) for a 48-day delay condonation, arguing that the judgment caused a loss to the public exchequer and that Rule 70 of the CCS (Pension) Rules permits correction of arithmetical errors.

1. Whether there exists an "error apparent on the face of the record" in the original judgment warranting a review under the limited jurisdiction of the Tribunal.

2. Whether recovery of excess pension paid due to a departmental software error is permissible against a retiree.

Rule 70 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, which governs the revision of pension after authorization.

The principles of review jurisdiction articulated in Sanjay Kumar Agarwal v. State Tax Officer, which mandates that a review is not an "appeal in disguise" and is only permissible for self-evident errors, not for re-arguing merits.

The court considered High Court of Punjab & Haryana v. Jagdev Singh regarding recovery.

The court considered Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji regarding the condonation of delay.

The Tribunal first condoned the 48-day delay, noting it was not intentional.

On the merits of the review, the court found that the Applicants were attempting to re-agitate issues already decided in the original O.A.

The court observed that the "clerical/software error" was entirely attributable to the department, and the Respondent was not at fault; thus, the burden of such a mistake cannot be shifted to a retiree.

The Tribunal emphasized that under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, a judgment cannot be "reheard and corrected" merely because a party disagrees with the conclusion.

It held that the Applicants' reliance on internal departmental notes did not override the statutory protections or the finality of the court’s previous reasoning.

The court held that there was no clerical or factual error apparent on the face of the record in the judgment dated 24.02.2025.

The Tribunal affirmed that a software error by the department is not a valid ground for recovery from a retiree and suggested that any corrective action should instead be directed toward the delinquent officers responsible for the lapse.

All pending M.A.s were disposed of with no order as to costs.