Recovery of excess family pension requires prior notice and an opportunity to be heard.

The applicant, an approximately 80-year-old widow, received family pension after her husband’s death on 27 July 2016.

The respondents alleged that the bank had paid her an enhanced rate instead of the applicable normal rate, resulting in excess payments.

By order dated 18 July 2025, the pension was reduced and recovery was initiated, including deductions from her pension; the order also contemplated recovery of earlier overpayments after verification.

The respondents maintained that the correct monthly rate was ₹16,080 and that the excess arose from erroneous payment by the bank/Pension Disbursement Agency.

The applicant challenged the recovery as arbitrary and unsupported by any fault or misrepresentation on her part.

Whether recovery of alleged excess family-pension payments from the applicant was permissible in the circumstances.

Whether the respondents could correct or reduce the family pension without first giving the applicant an opportunity to respond.

The Tribunal relied on State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih, (2015) 4 SCC 334, which identifies circumstances in which recovery of excess payments is impermissible, including recovery from retired employees and recovery relating to payments made for more than five years before the recovery order.

It also relied on the principle stated in Syed Abdul Qadir v. State of Bihar, (2009) 3 SCC 475, that recovery may be barred where the excess payment resulted from the employer’s erroneous application or interpretation of rules and was not caused by the recipient’s fraud or misrepresentation; and on Jagdish Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1909, which the Tribunal cited in support of relief against arbitrary recovery and non-compliance with natural justice.

The respondents relied on Rule 50(2)(a)(iii) of the CCS Pension Rules, 2021, as the basis for the normal rate of family pension.

The Tribunal further held that an opportunity by show-cause notice or hearing was required before action to correct the pension.

The Tribunal found that the alleged excess arose from an error in payment or pension fixation, rather than any identified misrepresentation or fraud by the applicant.

Given that the recovery related to a retired employee’s family pension and included payments extending over several years, it considered the case covered by the principles in Rafiq Masih and Jagdish Prasad Singh.

Although the Tribunal observed that the PPO’s enhanced-rate fixation was wrong because the pensioner died on 27 July 2016, it held that correction or recovery could not proceed without first giving the applicant an opportunity to respond.

The order dated 18 July 2025 was quashed, and the respondents were directed to refund any amount already recovered, with 6% interest, within three months of receiving the certified copy of the order.

The respondents may pursue correction of the family pension in accordance with the PPOs dated 27 October 2017 and 4 January 2020, but must first issue a show-cause notice, consider the applicant’s reply, and inform her of the action taken.

The exercise was directed to be completed expeditiously in view of the applicant’s age; no costs were awarded.