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

The applicant, S. Nalini, a retired Postal Assistant, voluntarily retired from service on 14.07.2011.

She resides approximately 5.5 kms from the CGHS Wellness Centre, Trichy.

As per an Office Memorandum dated 06.04.2018 from the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, pensioners residing beyond a 5 km radius from a CGHS Wellness Centre are entitled to Fixed Medical Allowance (FMA) at ₹1,000 per month.

The applicant was regularly paid FMA along with her pension.

However, the 2nd respondent stopped FMA payment with effect from 01.09.2024, citing a letter dated 18.12.2019 from the 1st respondent which stated the applicant's residential pincode falls within CGHS coverage.

Subsequently, the 2nd respondent issued an order dated 12.03.2025, following an objection raised during an Inspection-2024, directing the stoppage and recovery of an alleged excess payment of ₹60,000, at ₹3,000 per month, commencing from March 2025.

The applicant contends that the distance between her residence and the CGHS Wellness Centre exceeds 5 kms, making her eligible for FMA, and that there was no misrepresentation on her part.

The recovery was ordered without a show cause notice.

Whether the excess payment of Fixed Medical Allowance (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 legal principle established by the Hon'ble Apex Court that if an excess amount was not paid due to misrepresentation or fraud by the employee, or if it was paid due to the employer's wrong principle or erroneous interpretation of rules, such excess payments are not recoverable.

This principle was derived from a catena of judgments, including *Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana* (1995).

*Shyam Babu Verma v. Union of India* (1994).

*Union of India v. M. Bhaskar* (1996).

*V. Gangaram v. Regional Jt. Director* (1997).

*Thomas Daniel v. State of Kerala & Ors* (2022).

The court also relied on the specific guidelines from *State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) case* (2015), which outlined situations where recoveries by employers would be impermissible, including from retired employees or Class III/Group C employees.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant had already voluntarily retired from service on 14.07.2011 when the alleged payment was made and that the record did not reflect any fraud or misrepresentation by her for obtaining the FMA.

It was also an admitted position that the applicant was not afforded any opportunity of hearing before the recovery order was issued in 2025.

Applying the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court, particularly in *State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih*, the Tribunal found that recovery from a retired employee, especially a Group “C” employee not holding a gazetted post, without misrepresentation and due process, is unsustainable and unjustifiable.

The court underscored that relief against recovery in such cases is based on equity to prevent hardship to the employee, which outweighs the employer's right to recover.

The applicant, being a retired Group "C" employee from 2011, fell within the protected categories identified by the Supreme Court where recovery is impermissible.

The OA was allowed on the terms indicated.

The impugned orders dated 18/19.11.2024, 12.03.2025, and 05/06.05.2025 were set aside, and the interim order dated 19.08.2025 regarding recovery was made absolute.

The respondents were directed to refund any recovered amount to the applicant without interest within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of the order.