Recovery of excess payments from a retired employee is impermissible absent fraud or misrepresentation.

The applicant, a retired Train Manager who retired on 31 December 2019, challenged deductions of Rs. 28,286 per month from his pension, commenced in January 2025, following revision of his pension payment order (PPO) and pay fixation.

The respondents maintained that the earlier PPO reflected an incorrect fixation and that the resulting excess payment was recoverable.

The applicant contended that the alleged excess arose from departmental action, without fraud or misrepresentation on his part, and sought repayment with interest.

In earlier proceedings concerning the MACP benefit, the Tribunal’s decision was upheld by the High Court and the Supreme Court dismissed the respondents’ challenge.

The respondents stated that further deductions had been stopped following an interim order in this application.

Whether the respondents could retain amounts already recovered from the applicant’s pension where he had retired before recovery began and no fraud or misrepresentation was attributed to him.

Whether the applicant was entitled to interest on the recovered amount and, if so, at what rate.

The Tribunal applied the principles in State of Punjab & Ors. v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) & Ors., (2015) 4 SCC 334, which restrict recovery of excess payments in specified circumstances, including recovery from retired employees.

The relevant principle applied was that recovery is impermissible in the circumstances of a retired employee where the alleged excess arose from departmental pay fixation and no fraud or misrepresentation is attributed to the employee.

Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 was the basis on which the applicant invoked the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

The applicant also relied on the DoP&T Office Memorandum dated 2 March 2016 and Railway Board Office Memorandum dated 22 June 2016, but the Tribunal did not separately analyse or apply them in its reasoning.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had retired before the deductions commenced and that the respondents attributed the alleged excess to departmental pay fixation, not to any fraud or misrepresentation by the applicant.

Applying Rafiq Masih to those circumstances, it held that the recovery already made from his pension could not be sustained.

The Tribunal confined its decision to repayment of the sums recovered and expressly left the correctness of the pay fixation and revised PPO for the competent authority to address under the applicable rules.

It did not determine the applicant’s entitlement to any particular grade pay, pay, or pension, and made no order as to costs.