Recovery of excess pension from a retired employee after twenty years is impermissible in law.

The applicant, an 80-year-old retired employee of Eastern Railway who superannuated on May 31, 2003, discovered in January 2023 that ₹8,095 was being deducted monthly from his pension.

Upon inquiry, the Assistant Divisional Finance Manager, Eastern Railway, informed him via letter dated April 26, 2023, that an excess payment of ₹1,55,848 had been made to him since January 1, 2016, due to a calculation error.

Consequently, the authorities revised his pension downward and initiated recovery in installments to recoup the overpayment.

The applicant challenged this recovery, asserting he was a retired employee with no role in the miscalculation.

1. Whether the recovery of excess pension payments from a retired employee, initiated 20 years after his retirement, is legally permissible.

2. Whether the principles protecting employees from recovery of excess payments, as established by the Supreme Court, apply to the applicant.

State of Punjab & Ors. v. Rafiq Masih (White Washers) (2015) 4 SCC 334, which prohibits recovery from retired employees or when excess payment has been made for a period exceeding five years before the recovery order.

Thomas Daniel v. State of Kerala and the Department of Personnel & Training (DoP&T) Office Memorandum dated October 3, 2022, which restrict recoveries where no fraud or misrepresentation is attributable to the employee.

The Tribunal found that the applicant, a "super senior citizen," was not responsible for the overpayment; rather, the excess was credited due to lapses by the Punjab National Bank (Respondent No. 6) following a pension revision.

Applying the Rafiq Masih criteria, the Tribunal observed that the recovery was impermissible because the applicant is a retired employee (Clause ii) and the recovery was attempted more than five years after the mistake began (Clause iii).

The Tribunal rejected the respondents' argument that an undertaking to the bank justified the recovery, concluding that such a recovery after a 20-year retirement period would be "iniquitous, harsh, and arbitrary".

It quashed the recovery proceedings and directed Respondent No. 6 (Punjab National Bank) to refund all amounts already deducted from the applicant's pension. Furthermore, the respondents were directed to cease any future recoveries regarding this overpayment.