Recovery of excess payment from family pension without misrepresentation or fraud is unsustainable.

The applicant, G. Palaniammal, is a family pensioner whose husband passed away on October 3, 2008.

She resides more than 5 km from the CGHS Wellness Centre, Trichy, and was receiving Fixed Medical Allowance (FMA) of ₹1,000 per month as per an Office Memorandum dated April 6, 2018, which grants FMA to pensioners residing beyond 5 km of a CGHS Wellness Centre.

The 2nd respondent, without reference to a December 18, 2019 letter from the 1st respondent, stopped the FMA payment with effect from September 1, 2024, claiming her residential pincode falls within the CGHS coverage area.

Subsequently, on March 12, 2025, the 2nd respondent issued an order stating that an objection was raised during an Inspection – 2024, directing the stoppage and recovery of an alleged excess payment of FMA.

A recovery of ₹60,000 was ordered at ₹3,000 per month from her pension starting March 2025.

Whether the excess payment of FMA, allegedly paid by the respondents, can be recovered from the applicant when there was no misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the applicant and no prior notice or opportunity of hearing was afforded to her before making such recovery, especially when the applicant is a retired employee.

The court primarily applied the principle established in a catena of judgments by the Apex Court, including *Sahib Ram vs. State of Haryana (1995) Supp (1) SCC 18*, *Shyam Babu Verma Vs. Union of India (1994) 2 SCC 521*, *Union of India Vs. M. Bhaskar (1996) 4 SCC 416*, *V. Gangaram Vs. Regional Jt. Director (1997) 6 SCC 139*, and *Thomas Daniel Vs. State of Kerala & Ors (2022) SCC online SC 536*.

These judgments consistently hold that excess payments of emoluments or allowances are not recoverable if not paid due to misrepresentation or fraud by the employee, or if made by the employer based on a wrong principle or erroneous interpretation of rules.

The court also referred to *State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) case (2015 AIR SCW 501)*, which outlined specific situations where recovery would be impermissible, including recovery from retired employees or employees due to retire within one year, or when recovery would be iniquitous, harsh, or arbitrary.

The Tribunal applied the established legal precedents regarding the non-recoverability of excess payments made without employee misrepresentation or fraud.

It noted that there was no reflection in the record that the FMA payment to the applicant's deceased husband was due to any fraud or misrepresentation on his part.

Furthermore, the applicant was not afforded any opportunity of hearing before the recovery order was issued.

The Tribunal emphasized that the applicant's husband had died in 2008 and was a Group "D" employee, factors that, under the *Rafiq Masih* guidelines, render recovery unsustainable.

The recovery of ₹3,000 per month from the applicant's pension commencing March 2025 was deemed incorrect and unsustainable, given the lack of fault on the applicant's side and the hardship it would cause a family pensioner.

It allowed the OA, set aside the impugned order dated March 12, 2025, and made the interim order dated September 18, 2025, regarding recovery absolute.

The respondents were directed to refund any recovered amount to the applicant without interest within two months from the date of receipt of the order.