Recovery of excess family pension is impermissible absent fraud, misrepresentation, or concealment by the pensioner.

The applicant’s husband, an employee of the respondent Postal Department, died in harness on 14 February 2005. The applicant thereafter received family pension.

Under the applicable pension rules and the PPO, full family pension of ₹5,437 per month was payable up to 14 February 2012, followed by reduced family pension of ₹3,263 per month from 15 February 2012.

Due to departmental error, full family pension continued to be paid until 28 February 2017, resulting in alleged excess payment of ₹4,14,829.

The respondents commenced recovery from the applicant’s family pension, initially at ₹3,000 per month and later increased to ₹6,000 per month after audit objection.

The applicant requested that recovery be stopped, contending that the excess payment resulted solely from departmental error and that she had committed no fraud, misrepresentation, concealment, or misconduct.

The respondents maintained that the excess amount constituted government money and was recoverable, asserting that the applicant had earlier consented to recovery in instalments.

1. Whether recovery of the alleged excess family pension was legally permissible where the excess payment resulted from departmental error and there was no fraud, misrepresentation, concealment, or misconduct on the part of the family pensioner.

2. Whether the respondents could continue deductions from the applicant’s family pension and retain the amounts already recovered in the circumstances of the case.

The Tribunal applied the provisions governing payment of full and reduced family pension under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, under which full family pension was payable for seven years after the employee’s death and reduced family pension thereafter.

It relied on State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), (2015) 4 SCC 334, which holds that recovery of excess payments attributable to the employer’s mistake is impermissible in specified cases, including recovery from retired employees, recovery of amounts paid over a prolonged period, and situations where recovery would be harsh or inequitable.

It also relied on Thomas Daniel v. State of Kerala, (2022) 1 SCC 260, holding that excess pension paid due to an administrative error should not be recovered where the pensioner was not guilty of fraud or misrepresentation and recovery would cause undue hardship.

The Tribunal further referred to Ms. Indra v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Anr., W.P. (C) No. 4502/2021, decided on 27 May 2026, concerning protection against recovery from limited family pension in the absence of fraud, misrepresentation, or concealment.

The Tribunal found no material showing that the applicant had furnished false information, concealed facts, or misrepresented her entitlement.

The excess payment arose from the authorities’ failure to reduce the family pension after the expiry of seven years, despite the pension having been sanctioned and disbursed on the basis of official records.

Applying Rafiq Masih and Thomas Daniel, the Tribunal held that the applicant, being a family pensioner dependent on limited post-retiral income, occupied a position warranting protection from recovery of an administrative overpayment.

The departmental error could not equitably be transferred entirely to the applicant, and the prolonged deductions from her family pension were considered impermissible notwithstanding the respondents’ assertion that she had earlier agreed to repayment in instalments.

The respondents were directed to cease all further recovery from the applicant’s family pension on account of the alleged excess payment.

They were also directed to refund the amounts already recovered, together with interest at 6% per annum, within 60 days from receipt of a copy of the order.

No order was made as to costs.