Ex Sep Ratan Singh (Retd) vs UOI & Ors on 28 September 2026

1. 1. The Union of India, through The Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Raksha Bhawan, New Delhi-110011

2. 2. The Chief of the Army Staff, Army Headquarters South Block, New Delhi - 110011

3. 3. The OIC, The ASC Records (MT), Bangalore-560007

4. 4. The PCDA (P), Draupadi Ghat, Allahabad (UP)-211014

5. 5. The Assistant General Manager, SBI (CPPC), 1^st Floor, SMS Highway, Chaura Rasta, Jaipur (Raj) - 302003

.... Respondents

For Applicant For Respondents

: Mr. Samuel Masih, Advocate : Mr. Tribhuwan Singh, Advocate Proxy for Dr. Samir Shrimali, Advocate (R14) Mr. Lalit K Purohit, Advocate (R5)

**CORAM:**

**HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVERDHAN BARDHAR, MEMBER (J) HON'BLE MR. SANJIV MITTAL, MEMBER (A)**

**ORDER****28.09.2026**

1. Under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007, the Applicant has filed the present OA praying therein to direct the Respondents to stop recovery from the pension account of the Applicant and to refund an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- recovered from the Applicant vide impugned Order dt 10.10.2022.

2. Brief facts of the case as enunciated by the Applicant are that the Applicant is a pensioner with more than 80 years of age and is drawing his pension from State Bank of India, City Branch, Jodhpur. The Pension Disbursing Agency (PDA), ie., State Bank of India, without issuing any Show Cause Notice or prior notice to the Applicant, recovered an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- on 22.10.2022 from the available balance in Pension Account of the Applicant and further affected recovery @ Rs. 5157/- per month which is in violation of instructions issued by DoPT. The Applicant submits that he neither made any wrong statements to get undue pecuniary benefits nor submitted any undertaking to the effect that he shall refund the excess amount paid to him and, hence, the PDA cannot recover excess amount paid to him. In support of his claim, the Applicant has placed reliance on Hon'ble Supreme Court judgments in the cases of State of Punjab & Ors Vs Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc in CA No 11527/2014 (arising out of SLP (C) No 11684/2012) decided on 18.12.2014 and Chandi Prasad Uniyal & Ors Vs State of Uttarakhand & Ors, 2012 AIR SCW 4742, (2012) 8 SCC 417 and has reiterated that since the payment has been made continuously for more than 5 years with no fault on part of the Applicant, the PDA cannot recover the excess amount paid to him and, hence, the amount recovered from the pension account of the Applicant on account of excess payment be refunded to him.

3. The Respondents have filed a detailed Reply Statement and have submitted that the Applicant was granted Reservist Pension for life wef 01.10.1982 which has been revised from time to time. As per Para 9.2(ii) of the Scheme for Payment of Pension of Defence Pensioners an undertaking has been furnished on Annexure 'K' by the Applicant before the concerned PDA at the time of commencement of pension to the effect that the overpayment made erroneously by the PDA will be recovered directly by the PDA as per pensioner's undertaking. The revision of Reservist Pension was inadvertently done by the PDA wef 01.07.2009 and 24.09.2012 as per the scales of Service Pension instead of Reservist Pension. Based on this, the Applicant's Reservist Pension was also revised under One Rank One Pension (OROP) Scheme wef 01.07.2014 and 7^th CPC wef 01.01.2016 for which he was not entitled. On coming to know this fact, the Respondents (R5) intimated the same to the Applicant and recovery of the total excess amount was initiated from the monthly pension of the Applicant @ Rs. 5157/- pm wef Oct 2022. The Respondents (R5) have submitted that the excess amount has been calculated on the part of Respondents PCDA and not the PDA and the recovery has been initiated on the instructions of PCDA. In view of the aforesaid averments, the Respondents have reiterated that the OA is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.

4. During the course of arguments, Counsels for the Respondents (R1-4) and (R5) placed reliance on Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court judgment dt 07.01.2025 in DB CWP No 18546/2018 in the case of State Bank of India, UIT Branch, Jodhpur Vs Tulsi Devi & Others and submitted that the principles laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (Supra) are not applicable in this case as the PDA is just an agent for disbursing the pension and the PDA is not an employer of the Applicant.

5. We have heard Counsels for both the parties and perused the material placed on record.

6. It is a fact that the Applicant is a Reservist Pensioner and due to an inadvertent mistake on the part of the Respondents PDA, the Applicant was paid an excess amount of Rs. 10,82,943/- due to incorrect revision of his Pension which he was not legitimately entitled to. This Tribunal vide interim Order dt 19.12.2022 had stayed the recovery being affected by the PDA from the pension account of the Applicant. Further, the contention of the Applicant that the issue of the Applicant is covered under the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (Supra) is not relevant in the case of the Applicant herein as the Applicant is a Pensioner and the excess pension was paid to the Applicant erroneously by the Respondent PDA, ie, State Bank of India (CPPC), Jaipur and the Bank was not an employer in this matter as has been held by Hon'ble High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Bench at Jodhpur in the case of Tulsi Devi (Supra) and, hence, the Applicant has to make a refund of the excess amount paid to him due to inadvertent mistake on part of the Respondents. However, in the instant case, the overpayment to the Applicant has been caused due to error on the part of PDA and the Applicant had no role in excess payment made to him by PDA.

7. Taking note of overall facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that since the Applicant is an old aged pensioner of above 80 years of age, we deem it appropriate to direct the Respondents PDA to take necessary steps as deemed necessary to issue a fresh notice to the Applicant, if desired, with regard to the excess amount paid to the Applicant and its recovery from the Applicant, as the Applicant has reiterated that he has not furnished any undertaking with regard to refund of the excess amount paid to him by the PDA and he was not at fault for the same. Further, the prayer of the Counsel for the Applicant for refund of already recovered amount from the pension account of the Applicant is rejected as he was not entitled to the excess amount paid to him by Respondents PDA.


8. The OA is disposed off accordingly. Pending Miscellaneous Application(s), if any, also stand disposed off.

9. No order on costs.


Sd/- xxx

Sd/- xxx

(SANJIV MITTAL) MEMBER (A)

(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR) MEMBER (D)

Ssy/-