Prior litigation preserves retirees’ entitlement to notional-increment pension from the increment’s due date.

The applicant, a retired Superintendent of the CGST Department, superannuated on 30 June 2020.

In an earlier O.A. No. 452/2021, the Tribunal directed the respondents to grant him the benefit of one notional increment due on 1 July 2020, with consequential benefits, relying on P. Ayyamperumal v. Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal & Ors.

Pursuant to that order, the respondents initially issued a revised pension authority dated 16 June 2025.

However, through subsequent communications dated 8 July 2025 and 18 July 2025, the applicant’s revised pension was made effective from 1 May 2023 instead of 1 July 2020, and recovery of ₹2,25,138 was initiated on the ground of excess payment.

The departmental respondents later acknowledged the error, stating that the applicant was entitled to pensionary revision from 1 July 2020 under paragraph 3(d) of the Office Memorandum dated 20 May 2025, and directed restoration of the pension and cessation of recovery.

The State Bank of India stated that it was only the pension-disbursing agency and had acted on the authorities issued by the departmental respondents.

1. Whether the applicant’s entitlement to the benefit of one notional increment and consequential revised pension was governed by paragraph 3(d), rather than paragraph 3(a), of the Office Memorandum dated 20 May 2025

2. Whether the subsequent orders restricting the revised pension to the period commencing 1 May 2023 and initiating recovery of ₹2,25,138 were legally sustainable

3. Whether the applicant was entitled to restoration of the earlier revised pension authority and refund of any amount recovered

The Tribunal applied the Office Memorandum dated 20 May 2025, particularly paragraph 3(d), which provides that where a retired employee had filed an intervention or impleadment application in the relevant proceedings, or otherwise obtained a beneficial order, enhanced pension by including one increment is payable from the applicable qualifying date.

The Tribunal treated the applicant’s earlier O.A. No. 452/2021, filed before the Supreme Court’s decision in Director (Admn. & HR), KPTCL v. C.P. Mundinamani, 2023 (14) SCC 411, as bringing his case within the beneficial category contemplated by paragraph 3(d).

The Tribunal also applied the principle embodied in paragraph 5 of the Office Memorandum that excess payments already made, including arrears, should not be recovered in such circumstances.

The applicant had secured a prior Tribunal order granting the notional increment due on 1 July 2020.

Since his earlier proceedings preceded the judgment in C.P. Mundinamani, the Tribunal held that his case fell within paragraph 3(d) of the Office Memorandum dated 20 May 2025 and that the revised pension could not lawfully be limited to 1 May 2023.

The respondents’ own reply and communication dated 23 June 2026 acknowledged that the pension authorities had incorrectly been generated with effect from 1 May 2023 and directed revision from 1 July 2020.

As the erroneous pension calculation and consequent recovery resulted from the respondents’ mistaken application of the Office Memoranda, and not from any fault of the applicant, the orders cancelling the original benefit and directing recovery could not stand.

The Tribunal therefore restored the original pension authority dated 16 June 2025 and rejected the recovery consequential to the erroneous orders.

It quashed and set aside the orders dated 8 July 2025, 18 July 2025, and 22 August 2025; restored the revised pension letter dated 16 June 2025; directed the respondents to revise the applicant’s pension forthwith; and ordered refund of any recovered amount within three weeks from receipt of the order.

The O.A. was disposed of without costs.