Armed Forces Tribunal
Ex Nk Sarjeet Singh (Army) vs UOI & Others on 13 August 2026
**ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH, JAIPUR**
**2.
OA 195/2015 with MA 329/2015**
**No 2864884M Ex Nk Sarjit Singh, S/o Shri Sishpal Singh, Resident of Village Alampur, Post Bansur, Tehsil Bansur, District Alwar, Rajasthan
.... Applicant**
**Versus**
1. **1. UOI, through the Secretary, Department of Ex-Servicemen Welfare, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi – 110 011**
2. **2. Chief Controller of Defence Accounts (CCDA (P), G3/RA Section, Prayagraj, UP**
3. **3. Chief Record Officer, DSC Records, Mill Road, Cannanore – 670 013, Kerala**
4. **4. Branch Manager, State Bank of Bikar and Jaipur, (now State Bank of India) Branch Bansur, District Alwar, Rajasthan**
** .... Respondents**
**For Applicant**
**: Ms. Anjali Minocha, Proxy for
Mr. OP Sheoran, Advocate**
**For Respondents**
**: Mr. Gajendra Sharma, Advocate (R 1-3 )
: Mr. Yashraj Kumawat, Proxy for
Mr. Himanshu Jain, Advocate (R 4 )**
**CORAM:**
**HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVERDHAN BARDHAR, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MR. SANJIV MITTAL, MEMBER (A)**
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
**ORDER**
**13.08.2026**
1. **1. Under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007, the applicant has filed this OA praying that the impugned Order (PPO) dated 01/9/2009 issued by the Respondents may be quashed and set aside and that the Respondents be directed to repay the amount which was recovered from the applicant , ie, Rs 1,59,874/- by way of issuing a new Corrigendum PPO alongwith interest @12% per annum wef 01/8/2009 alongwith cost of the application.**
2. Vide Reply Statement, the Respondents have stated that the applicant was enrolled in the Army on 27/7/1971 and was transferred to pension establishment wef 31/3/1988 under the provisions of Rule 13 (3) item III (i) of Army Rules, 1954 at his own request on compassionate grounds. He had rendered 16 years, eight months and five days of service and was granted service pension for life. With regard to the prayer of the applicant, the Respondents have submitted that the PCDA (P) has recovered a sum of Rs 1,59,874/- which was paid in excess to the applicant against actual entitlement of retirement gratuity. Further, the applicant on re-enrolment in DSC had elected the option not to count his former service and continued to draw military pension and retain DCRG/service gratuity received from military service. In the instant case, the applicant was discharged from DSC service on completion of superannuation age of 57 years after rendering 17 years, seven months and five days of qualifying service and was again granted service pension for life. PCDA (P) erroneously sanctioned retirement gratuity of Rs 2,45,388/- and paid Rs 2,36,988/- (after deducting Rs 8400/- as contribution towards ECHS) counting both spells of qualifying service as 39 years, one month and five days vide their PRO No S/010226/2009. A sum of Rs 8580/- had already been paid to the applicant as gratuity for his service rendered in the previous army service. Subsequently, once the error came to the notice of PCDA (P), they issued a Corrigendum PRO dated 01/9/2009 to recover the excess amount of Rs 1,59,874/- alongwith an amount of Rs 3502/- has been paid to the applicant as the difference. Therefore, the recovery of Rs 1,59,874/- was made by the PCDA (P) correctly and nothing unlawful act involved in recovering the same by the PCDA (P).
3. During the course of hearing, Proxy Counsel submitted that the designated counsel for the applicant is satisfied with the reply statement filed by the Respondents and that he has no objection in disposing off the OA on its merit.
4. We have perused the material on record.
5. It is evident from the record that the applicant had initially rendered pensionable service of a little over 16 years, having been discharged from there wef 31/3/1988. Thereafter, he was re-enrolled in DSC and elected not to count his former service and, hence, continued to draw pension granted for the Army service. The applicant was discharged from DSC service on attaining the age of superannuation after rendering more than 17 years for which he was granted second service pension. Due to an oversight, the PCDA (P) sanctioned retirement gratuity of Rs 2,45,388/- erroneously counting both the spells of service of the applicant as 39 years, one month and five days. Subsequently, once the error came to their notice, PCDA (P) has rightly recovered an amount of Rs 1,59,874/- paid to the applicant as excess on account of DCRG.
6. In view of the foregoing and since the amount in question was paid to the applicant in excess to his legitimate dues due to an oversight, which was correctly recovered at a later date, we find no merit in the plea of the applicant and the OA is dismissed being devoid of merit.
7. No order on costs.
8. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed off.
Sd/- XXX
Sd/- XXX
(SANJIV MITTAL) MEMBER (A)
(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR) MEMBER (J)
cda/-