Facts
The applicant, a retired TBOP Postal Assistant (Group 'C'), voluntarily retired from service on September 30, 2011
Source reference: p. 2Following an Office Memorandum dated April 6, 2018, which grants Fixed Medical Allowance (FMA) to pensioners residing beyond a 5 km radius of a CGHS Wellness Centre, the applicant was paid FMA at ₹1,000 per month
Source reference: p. 2In September 2024, the respondents stopped the FMA payment, asserting that the applicant’s pincode fell within the CGHS coverage area
Source reference: p. 3Subsequently, on March 6, 2025, the 2nd respondent ordered the recovery of ₹60,000 in alleged excess payments at a rate of ₹3,000 per month from the applicant’s pension
Source reference: p. 3The applicant challenged the recovery, citing a lack of misrepresentation and violation of established legal guidelines regarding recoveries from retirees
Source reference: p. 3-4Issues
Whether the recovery of alleged excess FMA from a retired employee is sustainable in law when there was no fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the employee and no prior notice was afforded
Source reference: p. 4-5, para. 7Law Applied
The court primarily relied on the principles established by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), which prohibits recoveries from retired employees or Class III/IV (Group C and D) employees when payments were made mistakenly by the employer without employee fraud
Source reference: p. 6-7, para. 8It further applied the ratio from Jogeswar Sahoo Others Vs. The District Judge, Cuttack
Source reference: p. 5, para. 8Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana, affirming that if excess payment results from an employer's wrong interpretation of rules rather than employee misrepresentation, such amounts are not recoverable in equity
Source reference: p. 5-6, para. 10Reasoning
The Tribunal observed that the applicant is a retired Group 'C' employee who superannuated in 2011, long before the recovery order was issued in 2025
Source reference: p. 7-8, para. 9The record indicated no evidence of fraud or misrepresentation by the applicant to secure the FMA; rather, the payment was a result of the respondents' administrative actions
Source reference: p. 7, para. 9Furthermore, the respondents failed to issue a show-cause notice or provide an opportunity for a hearing before initiating the recovery from the pension
Source reference: p. 7-8, para. 9By applying the Rafiq Masih criteria—specifically the exemptions for retired employees and Group C staff—the Tribunal reasoned that the recovery was iniquitous, arbitrary, and caused undue hardship, thereby outweighing the employer's right to recover the mistaken payment
Source reference: p. 8, para. 9Holding
The Tribunal held that while the applicant may not be entitled to future FMA if residing in a CGHS-covered area, the recovery of past payments is unsustainable
The impugned order dated March 6, 2025, was set aside
Source reference: p. 8, para. 10The respondents were directed to refund any amount already recovered from the applicant’s pension, without interest, within a period of two months from the receipt of the order
Source reference: p. 8, para. 10-11No order as to costs was made
Source reference: p. 8, para. 11Original Court PDF
R PushparajvsDEPTT OF POSTAL
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in