Recovery from retired Group C employees is impermissible absent employee fraud or misrepresentation.

The applicant, a retired Postman (Group C) who superannuated on February 28, 2005, was receiving a Fixed Medical Allowance (FMA) of ₹1,000 per month

This was based on an Office Memorandum (OM) dated April 6, 2018, which allowed FMA for pensioners residing beyond a 5 km radius of a CGHS Wellness Centre

Following an audit objection in 2024, the respondents determined the applicant’s residence fell within the CGHS coverage area based on his pincode and an OM dated December 18, 2019

Consequently, the respondents stopped the FMA in September 2024 and issued orders dated October 25, 2024, and March 17, 2025, to recover ₹60,000 in monthly installments of ₹3,000 from the applicant's pension

The applicant challenged these orders, asserting that the distance exceeded 5 km and that no prior notice was provided before the recovery

Whether the recovery of alleged excess FMA payments from a retired Group C employee is legally sustainable when there was no misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee and no prior notice was afforded

The court primarily relied on the principles established by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) (2015), which prohibits recovery from retired employees or Group C/Class III employees when payments were made mistakenly by the employer without the employee's fault

It further applied the equitable doctrine from Jogeswar Sahoo & Others v. The District Judge, Cuttack (2025) and Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana (1995), holding that excess payments made due to an employer’s wrong interpretation of rules are not recoverable if they cause undue hardship

The court also noted the procedural requirement under the CCS (Pension) Rules 1972 regarding the President's authority for pension recoveries

The Tribunal observed that the applicant was a retired Group C employee who had superannuated nearly two decades prior to the recovery order

The court found no evidence in the record suggesting that the applicant had committed any fraud or misrepresentation to obtain the FMA

Crucially, the Tribunal noted that the respondents failed to issue a show-cause notice or provide an opportunity for a hearing before initiating the recovery, violating principles of natural justice

Applying the "White Washer" guidelines, the court reasoned that the recovery from a retired Group C employee after such a significant lapse of time was iniquitous and arbitrary, outbalancing the employer's right to recover the mistakenly paid funds

While the Tribunal did not restore the applicant's entitlement to future FMA, it focused on the illegality of the retrospective recovery

The court set aside the impugned recovery orders dated October 25, 2024, and March 17, 2025

The respondents were directed to refund any amount already recovered from the applicant’s pension without interest within two months of receiving the order

The interim stay on recovery was made absolute