Recovery of excess payment from retired employee without misrepresentation is impermissible.

The applicant, V. Selvaraj, a retired Postal Assistant, superannuated on July 31, 2014.

He 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, issued by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare.

The 2nd respondent, the Senior Postmaster (G), Tiruchirapalli Head Post Office, based on a letter dated December 18, 2019, from the 1st respondent, stopped the FMA payment from September 1, 2024, arguing that the applicant's pincode falls within the CGHS coverage area.

Subsequently, an order dated March 6, 2025, was issued to recover ₹60,000 (at ₹3,000 per month) from the applicant's pension starting March 2025, after an objection raised during an Inspection.

The applicant contends that he did not misrepresent facts and no show cause notice was issued before the recovery.

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 his part and no prior notice or opportunity of hearing was afforded, especially when the applicant is a retired employee.

The court primarily applied the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India regarding the impermissibility of recovery of excess payments made by an employer, particularly when there is no misrepresentation or fraud by the employee.

Key precedents include *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, *Thomas Daniel Vs. State of Kerala & Ors* (2022) SCC online SC 536, and significantly, *State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer)* 2015 AIR SCW 501.

*Rafiq Masih* outlined specific situations where recoveries are impermissible, including from retired employees or Class III/IV service employees, or when the recovery would be iniquitous, harsh, or arbitrary.

The CCS (Pension) Rules 1972 were also invoked, asserting that recovery from pension requires an order from the President of India.

The court analyzed the recovery order against the established legal principles regarding the recovery of excess payments.

It noted that the applicant retired in 2014 and was a Group "C" employee (not holding a gazetted post).

Crucially, there was no allegation of fraud or misrepresentation on the applicant's part, and no prior opportunity of hearing was given before the recovery order was issued in 2025.

Applying the guidelines from *State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer)*, particularly the impermissibility of recovery from retired employees or Group C/D service employees, the court found the recovery unsustainable and unjustifiable.

The court stressed that such relief against recovery is based on equity to prevent hardship, not on an employee's right.

The respondents' argument that the applicant was ineligible for FMA because his pincode fell within a CGHS-covered area did not negate the principles against recovery in the absence of misrepresentation or notice to the retired employee.

Therefore, the impugned order dated March 6, 2025, directing the recovery of FMA was set aside.

The interim order dated September 18, 2025, concerning recovery was made absolute.

Any amount already recovered must be refunded to the applicant without interest within two months from the date of receipt of the order.

The OA was allowed on these terms.