Recovery of overpayments from retired employees after significant delays is impermissible under the Rafiq Masih precedent.

The review applicants are retired employees (Administrative Officers, Assistants, etc.) of the Military Engineer Services under the Ministry of Defence.

They filed Review Applications (RAs) against a common order dated 27.01.2025, which had dismissed their original applications (OAs).

In RA 18/2025, the applicants sought a review of the dismissal of OA 955/2016.

In RA 19/2025, the applicant (N. Vasavan) specifically challenged the recovery of excess payments ordered via Annexure-A19, contending that the Tribunal had failed to consider detailed arguments regarding the illegality of belated recovery from a retired person.

The applicant highlighted that recoveries of ₹9,335 and ₹9,634 were made in early 2021, long after his retirement.

1. Whether the grounds raised in RA 18/2025 fall within the scope of a Review Application.

2. Whether the Tribunal committed an error apparent on the face of the record by omitting to consider the challenge against recovery in OA 169/2021 in light of the Rafiq Masih precedent.

3. Whether the recovery initiated against the retired applicant via Annexure-A19 is legally sustainable.

The Tribunal primarily relied on the principles established by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), which prohibits recovery from retired employees or employees due to retire within one year, particularly when the recovery is sought after a long duration and would cause undue hardship.

The Tribunal also exercised its review jurisdiction to correct an "omission" in the original order where a specifically urged point was noted by the Bench but not included in the final written judgment.

Regarding RA 18/2025, the Tribunal found that the arguments advanced did not meet the legal threshold for a review, as they did not demonstrate an error apparent on the face of the record but rather sought a re-hearing.

In RA 19/2025, the Tribunal admitted a procedural lapse, noting that the contention regarding Annexure-A19 and the Rafiq Masih protections had been "taken note by this Tribunal" during the original hearing but was "omitted to be included in the order".

The Tribunal analyzed the timing of the recovery (commencing in 2021) against the applicant's status as a 79-year-old retiree and concluded that the protection against recovery for retired persons applied with "equal force" in this case.

Consequently, the Tribunal determined that the recovery was legally unsustainable due to the lapse of time and the pathetic condition of the retired employee.

It allowed RA 19/2025 and modified the common order dated 27.01.2025 to set aside Annexure-A19 to the extent of the recovery ordered against the applicant.

The Tribunal directed the respondents to quantify and return the recovered amounts to the applicant within three months, failing which the amount would carry 8% interest per annum.

O.A 169/2021 was thus allowed to that limited extent while the other O.As remained dismissed.