Recovery of alleged excess payments may not be made from a superannuated employee.

The applicant was appointed as an Assistant Registrar in the Cooperative Department on 15 January 1990, promoted as In-Charge Deputy Registrar on 27 April 2007, and retired from service on 31 May 2021.

His pension was sanctioned through GPO No. 2421 dated 4 August 2021.

Subsequently, the Government sanctioned regularisation/promotion of Assistant Registrars working as In-Charge Deputy Registrars to the post of Deputy Registrar with effect from 27 April 2007, and the applicant, listed at serial no. 1, was included in the regularisation.

His case was thereafter forwarded for re-fixation of pension, but the Accountant General’s office returned it, observing that his pay had allegedly been wrongly fixed in 1999 and required re-examination.

The applicant was informed that his pension had been fixed at ₹83,600 per month, compared with ₹86,100 in the case of another similarly situated retired Deputy Registrar, Naresh Kumar Sharma, allegedly because an increment granted in 1999 had been treated as wrongly allowed.

Apprehending reduction of pension and recovery of alleged excess payment, the applicant approached the Tribunal seeking protection against recovery and refund of any amount recovered.

The respondents contended that the re-fixation was rule-compliant and that no recovery had in fact been initiated.

1. Whether the respondents could recover alleged excess salary or pension payments from the applicant, who had retired in 2021, in the absence of fraud or misrepresentation on his part.

2. Whether the applicant’s pension could be re-fixed, and if so, whether the competent authority was required to consider his claim with reference to the pension fixed for the similarly situated retired Deputy Registrar, Naresh Kumar Sharma.

3. Whether the applicant was entitled to interim or final protection against the apprehended recovery despite the respondents’ assertion that no recovery had yet been initiated.

The Tribunal applied the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (Whitewasher) and Thomas Daniel v. State of Kerala & Ors., AIR 2022 SC 2153, that recovery of excess payments from employees, particularly retired employees, is impermissible where the excess payment was not procured through fraud or misrepresentation attributable to the employee.

It also took note of Bola Nath v. Union Territory of J&K, O.A. No. 789/2025, in which protection was granted against arbitrary reduction of pension and recovery from a retired employee in the absence of fault, fraud, or misrepresentation; however, that decision was to be considered only if it continued to hold the field.

Pension re-fixation remained subject to determination by the competent authority in accordance with the applicable rules and the applicant’s lawful entitlement.

The Tribunal accepted that the applicant had superannuated in 2021 and that the alleged excess payment arose from departmental pay fixation rather than any established fraud or misrepresentation by him.

Applying the principles in Rafiq Masih and Thomas Daniel, it held that recovery from the retired applicant could not be permitted merely because the department later considered an earlier increment or pay fixation erroneous.

Although the respondents maintained that no recovery had yet been initiated, the Tribunal treated the applicant’s apprehension as sufficiently connected with the pension re-fixation correspondence to grant protective relief.

At the same time, it did not finally determine the correct pension amount.

Instead, it directed the applicant to place his claim before the competent authority, which was required to decide the issue according to law and to consider the pensionary treatment of similarly situated retired Deputy Registrar Naresh Kumar Sharma.

The applicant was directed to submit his case regarding pension re-fixation to the competent authority, which must decide it in accordance with law and consider the case of Naresh Kumar Sharma.

The Tribunal further directed that Bola Nath v. Union Territory of J&K be taken into account only if it remained legally operative.

The connected miscellaneous applications, if any, were also disposed of.