Recovery of excess pension from family pensioners is inequitable and impermissible.

The applicant, Omana Amma, aged 72 and suffering from age-related ailments, is a family pensioner whose husband, Mahadevan Pillai, passed away on December 30, 2001, while serving as a Store Keeper in Naval Aircraft Yard, Kochi.

She was granted family pension at an enhanced rate for 10 years, as per the relevant rules, which expired on December 29, 2011.

However, due to an administrative error, she continued to receive the enhanced rate of pension until October 2023, when her pension was migrated to the SPARSH portal.

The respondents subsequently detected an overpayment of Rs. 1,24,843/- from December 30, 2011, to October 2023.

Starting August 2025, without prior notice to the applicant, the respondents began recovering the excess amount in 21 installments.

As of the hearing, Rs. 23,182/- had already been recovered from her pension.

The applicant contends that these recoveries are arbitrary, illegal, and unjust, violating principles of natural justice and citing her sole dependence on the pension for income.

Whether the recovery of alleged overpaid family pension from the applicant, a septuagenarian widow, without prior notice, is permissible and equitable.

Whether the interim order passed by the Tribunal on November 7, 2025, against further recovery, was complied with.

The court primarily applied the principle established in State of Punjab and Ors. v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) [(2015) 4 SCC 334], which enumerates circumstances where recovery from employees is impermissible, emphasizing general inequity in such recoveries.

It also considered the intent and purpose of this dictum to extend to family pensioners.

The court distinguished Chandigarh Administration and Ors. v. Naurang Singh and Ors. [(1997) 4 SCC 177], High Court of Punjab and Haryana and Ors. v. Jagdev Singh [(2016) 14 SCC 267], and Chandi Prasad Unniyal and Ors. v. State of Uttarakhand and Ors. [(2012) 8 SCC 417], relied upon by the respondents, finding them either inapplicable or distinguishable based on facts and the principles established in Rafiq Masih.

The court found that the overpayment of pension at enhanced rates, extending beyond the stipulated 10-year period, was solely attributable to the respondents' mistake and not to any action or omission by the applicant.

Citing Rafiq Masih (supra), the court emphasized that while that decision primarily concerned recovery from employees, its underlying intent and purpose rendered recovery from a family pensioner inequitable, especially given her vulnerability as a 72-year-old widow solely dependent on the pension.

The court noted that the respondents' actions in recovering the amount without notice violated principles of natural justice.

The specific circumstances of the applicant, including her advanced age and health issues, made the recovery of her "small amount" of family pension "iniquitous".

Furthermore, the court acknowledged that its own interim order for stopping recoveries was not fully complied with, though it did not impose further action, accepting the explanation given by the Standing Counsel.

The court quashed Annexures A2 and A4, which documented the reduced family pension and recovery installments.

The interim order passed by the Tribunal on November 7, 2025, against further recovery, was made absolute.

The respondents were directed to refund the already recovered amount of Rs. 23,182/- to the applicant within 90 days from the date of the order, with interest at 8% per annum if not refunded within that period.

The Original Application was allowed as above, with no costs.