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

The applicant, a retired Kendriya Vidyalaya Principal, challenged an order dated 11 March 2019 that maintained his revised pension at ₹13,491 per month from 1 January 2006 and was also associated with recovery of alleged excess pension payments.

His pension had previously been fixed at ₹14,960 per month, but was reduced following a review under applicable government memoranda and a Ministry clarification.

He argued that the reduction and recovery were unlawful; the respondents maintained that the revised pension was correctly calculated.

At admission, the Tribunal directed that no recovery be made pending further orders.

1. Whether recovery of alleged excess pension payments from the retired applicant was legally permissible

2. Whether the respondents’ revision of the applicant’s pension to ₹13,491 per month from 1 January 2006 was legally sustainable

Relying on State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), (2015) 4 SCC 334, and Thomas Daniel v. State of Kerala & Others, Civil Appeal No. 7115 of 2010, decided 2 May 2022, the Tribunal applied the principle that recovery of excess payments may be impermissible where it would cause undue hardship, including recovery from retired employees, where the payment was not obtained through fraud or misrepresentation, or where recovery is otherwise inequitable.

For pension revision, it considered the Government of India, Department of Pension & Pensioners’ Welfare O.M. No. 38/37/08-P&PW(A) dated 6 April 2016, the O.M. dated 22 January 2013, and the Ministry of Human Resource Development clarification dated 18 October 2016.

The applicant was already retired when recovery was pursued, and the record disclosed no misrepresentation or fraud on his part.

Applying Rafiq Masih and Thomas Daniel, the Tribunal held that recovery would fall within the categories in which recovery is impermissible; it also noted that no prior notice had been issued to the applicant.

Separately, the Tribunal found that the respondents had reviewed the pension under the applicable pension memoranda and Ministry clarification, and that the resulting fixation at ₹13,491 per month from 1 January 2006 disclosed no infirmity.

Any amount already recovered was to be refunded without interest within three months of receipt of the order.

The pension revision to ₹13,491 per month was upheld; the OA was disposed of with no order as to costs.