Government must refund unauthorized pension recoveries with applicable GPF interest despite inter-departmental responsibility disputes.

The applicant, a retired Chief Commissioner of Railway Safety, retired on 1 March 2007. An amount of ₹1,80,400 was deducted from his pension account on 6 October 2009 without prior intimation. He subsequently addressed representations to Punjab National Bank and lodged a grievance on the CPENGRAMS Pension Portal, seeking restoration of the amount, but received no satisfactory response.

He also claimed ₹7,653 towards alleged arrears of second commutation, interest, compensation for mental agony, and litigation expenses.

The Commission of Railway Safety and the Pay and Accounts Office stated that no recovery proposal or authorization had been issued by them. Punjab National Bank, however, stated that the amount had been deducted and credited to the concerned Treasury through a demand draft.

The applicant therefore filed the present Original Application before the Tribunal.

1. Whether the applicant was entitled to recovery of ₹1,80,400 deducted from his pension account, when the concerned departmental authorities denied issuing any authorization for the deduction.

2. Whether the respondents could avoid liability by attributing responsibility for the deduction to one another, despite the amount having been credited to the Government Treasury.

3. Whether the applicant was entitled to interest on the recovered amount and the other reliefs claimed by him.

The Tribunal applied the principle that a retired government employee cannot be made to suffer financial loss on account of unauthorized recovery or inter se administrative disputes between government authorities.

Pensionary dues constitute legitimate amounts earned through service and, where an amount deducted from such dues is ultimately credited to the Government account, the Government must ensure its restoration to the affected pensioner.

The Tribunal further directed payment of interest at the applicable General Provident Fund (GPF) rates from the date of deduction until actual release.

No specific statutory provision or judicial precedent was expressly relied upon in the order.

The Tribunal found a clear conflict in the respondents’ positions: the Bank maintained that the deduction was made pursuant to Treasury authorization, whereas the Pay and Accounts Office and the Commission of Railway Safety denied issuing or receiving any recovery instruction.

Rather than requiring the retired applicant to establish which authority was individually responsible, the Tribunal focused on the undisputed fact that ₹1,80,400 had been lost from his pensionary funds and credited to the Government Treasury.

Applying the principle that administrative lack of coordination cannot prejudice a pensioner, the Tribunal held that the competent authority among the respondents was responsible for restoring the amount with appropriate interest.

The direction was to be complied with expeditiously, preferably within six weeks from receipt of a certified copy of the order.

No order as to costs was made.