Recovery of excess payments from retired Group C employees is impermissible absent fraud or misrepresentation.

The applicant retired as a Lower Selection Grade (LSG) Supervisor from the Department of Posts on October 31, 2007

Based on a 2018 Office Memorandum, he was granted a Fixed Medical Allowance (FMA) of ₹1,000 per month as he resided more than 5 km from the CGHS Wellness Centre in Trichy

In September 2024, the respondents stopped the FMA, asserting that the applicant’s residential pincode fell within a CGHS-covered area

Following an internal audit objection in 2024, the 2nd respondent issued an order dated March 14, 2025, directing the recovery of ₹60,000 in monthly installments of ₹3,000 from the applicant’s pension

The applicant challenged this recovery, citing a lack of misrepresentation on his part and the absence of a prior show-cause notice

Whether the respondents can recovery alleged excess payments of Fixed Medical Allowance (FMA) from a retired employee in the absence of fraud, misrepresentation, or prior notice

The court primarily applied the principles governing the recovery of excess payments from employees as established by the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) (2015), which prohibits recovery from retired employees or Group C/Class III employees when the payment was not due to the employee's fraud or misrepresentation

The Tribunal further relied on Jogeswar Sahoo & Others v. The District Judge, Cuttack (2025) and Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana (1995), which held that if an excess payment results from an employer’s wrong interpretation of rules rather than an employee’s fault, such amounts are not recoverable on the grounds of equity and judicial discretion

The Tribunal observed that the applicant was a retired Group C employee who had superannuated in 2007, nearly 18 years before the recovery order was issued in 2025

There was no evidence on record suggesting that the payment of FMA was obtained through fraud or misrepresentation by the applicant

Furthermore, the respondents failed to provide the applicant with a show-cause notice or an opportunity for a hearing before initiating the recovery, violating principles of natural justice

Applying the Rafiq Masih criteria, the Tribunal reasoned that recovery from a retired Group C employee is "iniquitous and arbitrary" as the hardship caused to the pensioner outweighs the employer's right to recover

The impugned order dated March 14, 2025, regarding the recovery was set aside

The Tribunal directed the respondents to refund any amount already recovered from the applicant’s pension within two months, without interest

The Original Application (OA) was allowed specifically regarding the recovery, though not regarding the continued entitlement to FMA