Facts
The applicant retired as a Sub Postmaster (Group ‘C’) from the Tiruchirapalli Head Post Office on May 31, 2017
Source reference: p.2, 8Following her retirement, she was granted a Fixed Medical Allowance (FMA) of ₹1,000 per month as she resided 5.5 km from the nearest CGHS Wellness Centre, exceeding the 5 km threshold established by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare OM dated April 6, 2018
Source reference: p.2In June 2025, the respondents abruptly stopped the FMA and ordered the recovery of ₹68,032 (at a rate of ₹3,000 per month) from her pension based on an internal audit objection (IAIR 2024), which claimed her residential pincode fell within a CGHS-covered area
Source reference: p.3The applicant challenged the recovery, noting that no show-cause notice was issued and no fraud or misrepresentation was committed on her part
Source reference: p.3-4Issues
1. Whether the recovery of alleged excess payments of Fixed Medical Allowance (FMA) from a retired employee is legally sustainable when there is no evidence of fraud or misrepresentation
Source reference: p.4-5, para 72. Whether the respondents violated the principles of natural justice by effecting recovery from the applicant’s pension without prior notice or an opportunity for a hearing
Source reference: p.5, para 7Law Applied
State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) (2015), which prohibits recovery from retired employees or Group ‘C’ and ‘D’ employees when excess payments were made without the employee’s fault
Source reference: p.6, para 13ratio from Jogeswar Sahoo Others v. The District Judge, Cuttack (2025) and Thomas Daniel v. State of Kerala Ors (2022), which affirm that excess payments made due to an employer’s wrong interpretation of rules are not recoverable on grounds of equity and hardship
Source reference: p.5, para 8-9procedural requirements under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, regarding the President's authority for pension recoveries
Source reference: p.3-4Reasoning
The Tribunal observed that the applicant was a Group ‘C’ employee who had been retired for eight years (since 2017) before the recovery was initiated in 2025
Source reference: p.8, para 9The record indicated that the FMA payments were not a result of any fraud or misrepresentation by the applicant but were based on the department's own application of the 2018 OM
Source reference: p.7, para 9The Tribunal found that the respondents failed to issue a show-cause notice, thereby violating the principles of natural justice
Source reference: p.8, para 9Applying the Rafiq Masih criteria, the Tribunal reasoned that recovery from a retired Group ‘C’ employee for payments spanning several years is "iniquitous, harsh, and arbitrary," as the hardship caused to the pensioner outweighs the employer's right to recover mistakenly paid funds
Source reference: p.6-7, para 13Holding
The Tribunal allowed the Original Application, holding that while the applicant’s future entitlement to FMA was not the primary focus, the recovery of past payments was illegal
The impugned recovery orders dated 18.06.2025 and 10.07.2025 were set aside
Source reference: p.8, para 10The Tribunal directed the respondents to refund any amount already recovered from the applicant’s pension without interest within a period of two months
Source reference: p.8, para 10No order was made as to costs
Source reference: p.8, para 11Original Court PDF
L SudhavsDEPTT OF POSTAL
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in