RECOVERY OF EXCESS PAYMENT FROM RETIRED EMPLOYEE WITHOUT MISREPRESENTATION IS UNSUSTAINABLE AND UNJUSTIFIABLE.

The applicant, M. Sandana Adaikalam, a former Sub Postmaster at Trichy Fort Post Office, voluntarily retired from service on March 4, 2013

Residing more than 6 km from the CGHS Wellness Centre, Trichy, she was entitled to and regularly received 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

However, the 2nd respondent, citing a letter from the 1st respondent dated December 18, 2019, which stated the applicant's residential pincode falls within the CGHS coverage area, stopped her FMA from September 1, 2024

Subsequently, an order dated March 12, 2025, was issued by the 2nd respondent, directing the stoppage and recovery of ₹60,000/-, at ₹3,000/- per month from her pension starting March 2025, based on an objection raised during an Inspection – 2024

The applicant contends that despite the 2019 letter, her residence is still more than 5 km from the CGHS Wellness Centre, making her eligible for FMA

No show cause notice was issued to the applicant before the recovery order

Whether the excess payment of FMA, allegedly paid to the applicant, can be recovered when there was no misrepresentation or fraud on her part

Whether such recovery is permissible given that no prior notice or opportunity of hearing was afforded to the applicant before making the recovery

Whether the recovery is sustainable when the applicant is a retired employee

The court primarily applied principles established by the Supreme Court regarding the recovery of excess payments from employees, especially in cases of no misrepresentation or fraud.

Key precedents include Sahib Ram vs. State of Haryana (1995) which held that recovery is not permissible if the excess payment was due to the employer's wrong interpretation of rules without the employee's fault

State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) case (2015) disallowed recovery in situations causing undue hardship to the employee, particularly from retired or Class III/IV employees, and where excess payment occurred over five years prior to recovery without fault of the employee

The Tribunal applied the principles from Jogeswar Sahoo & Others v. The District Judge, Cuttack & Others (2025), which affirmed that recovery of excess payments is generally impermissible when there is no misrepresentation or fraud by the employee

In the instant case, the applicant had voluntarily retired in 2013 and was classified as a Group "C" employee

There was no indication of fraud or misrepresentation on her part for receiving the FMA, which was initially paid based on an Office Memorandum dated April 6, 2018

Furthermore, no prior opportunity of hearing was provided to the applicant before the recovery order was issued in 2025

Applying the guidelines from Rafiq Masih (White Washer) case, which prohibits recovery from retired employees or Class III/IV service employees

the Tribunal found the recovery unsustainable and unjustifiable

The recovery was an arbitrary act by the respondents, disproportionate to their right to recover, and would cause hardship to the retired applicant

Accordingly, the OA was allowed

The impugned order dated March 12, 2025, directing the recovery was set aside, and the interim order dated September 18, 2025, concerning recovery was made absolute

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