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

The applicant, A.V. Umavathi, retired as a Treasurer from Trichy Fort Sub Post Office on superannuation on April 30, 2018.

She resides more than 5 km from the CGHS Wellness Centre, Trichy.

In accordance with an Office Memorandum dated April 6, 2018, issued by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Directorate General of CGHS, she was regularly paid Fixed Medical Allowance (FMA) of ₹1,000 per month.

The 2nd respondent ceased FMA payment from September 1, 2024, citing a letter dated December 18, 2019, from the 1st respondent indicating her residential pincode fell within CGHS coverage.

Subsequently, on March 17, 2025, the 2nd respondent issued an order to stop FMA and recover an alleged excess payment of ₹60,000 at ₹3,000 per month from her pension commencing March 2025, based on an objection raised during an Inspection – 2024 by IAIR.

The applicant contends that her residence remains beyond the 5 km radius, making the recovery arbitrary and illegal.

Whether the recovery of Fixed Medical Allowance (FMA) from the applicant's pension is sustainable when there was no misrepresentation or fraud on her part, and she is a retired employee.

Whether the recovery of FMA is permissible if no prior notice or opportunity of hearing was afforded to the applicant.

The court primarily applied the principle established by the Supreme Court of India regarding the impermissibility of recovering excess payments from employees, particularly retired ones, if there was no misrepresentation or fraud.

This principle was derived from a catena of judgments, 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.

The decision in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) case (2015 AIR SCW 501) further provided specific situations where recovery would be impermissible, including from retired employees or Class III/IV service personnel.

The Tribunal analyzed the case based on established Supreme Court precedents, particularly the White Washer case, which prohibits recovery from retired employees or those in Class III/IV service when there is no misrepresentation or fraud.

The court noted that the applicant, having superannuated in 2018 and being a Group “C” employee (analogous to Class III/IV), falls within the protected categories identified by the Supreme Court.

Crucially, the record did not indicate any fraud or misrepresentation by the applicant in receiving the FMA.

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

Given these facts, the recovery was deemed unsustainable and unjustifiable as per the principles of equity and judicial discretion outlined in the cited judgments.

The impugned order dated March 17, 2025, ordering recovery was set aside, and the interim order dated September 18, 2025, regarding recovery, was made absolute.

Any amount already recovered from the applicant's pension is to be refunded without interest by the respondents within two months from the date of receipt of the order.