Smt Hira Devi wdo Late Sep Dalla Ram vs UOI & Others on 17 March 2026

O R D E R

17.03.2026

1. By way of this Application under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007, the Applicant has prayed for directing the Respondents not to recover excess amount of Rs. 8,21,676/- from the Family Pension of the Applicant and to refund the already recovered amount of Rs. 1,03,278/- from the Family Pension account of the Applicant.

2. Brief facts of the case as enunciated by the Applicant are that the Applicant’s husband was initially enrolled in the Army on 13.04.1972 and discharged from Service on 16.06.1975. Thereafter, he got re-enrolled in DSC

on 17.06.1975 and after rendering more than 18 years of service in both the spells of service, he was discharged from Service on 30.06.1990 for which he was granted Service Pension for life. After death of Applicant’s husband on 07.11.2022, the Applicant approached the Pension Disbursing Agency (PDA) for grant of Family Pension, who in turn intimated that they have received instructions for recovery of excess amount of Rs. 8,21,676/- paid to her husband in excess of his entitlement for the period from 01.01.2013 to 07.11.2022. A sum of Rs. 1,03,278/- which was held as credit balance in her husband’s account was deducted by the PDA. The Respondents withheld the Family Pension entitled to the Applicant with instructions that the Family Pension will be granted only after deposit of excess amount paid to her husband. The Applicant has placed reliance on Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment dt 18.12.2014 in Civil Appeal No 11527/2014 (arising out of SLP (c) No 11684/2012) in the case of State of Punjab & Ors Vs Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and contended that the Respondents cannot recover the excess payment made to her husband as it was not because of any misrepresentation or fraud on his part and the Applicant, being a widow and family pensioner, recovery from a meager amount of pension cannot be done. Further the excess payment made to her husband by the Respondents PDA was due to their mistake to wrong interpretation of PPO and the PCDA (P) circulars issued from time to time and, hence, the Applicant cannot be penalized or held responsible for the mistake on part of the Respondent PDA. Further, the Applicant’s husband was Class ‘C’ employee and was paid excess amount of Service Pension continuously for more than five years. Therefore, the recovery made from the Applicant by the Respondents PDA is illegal, arbitrary and against the principles laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (Supra). Further, based on the judgment in the Rafiq Masih (Supra), Govt of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Personnel and Training, New Delhi vide letter dt 02.03.2016 has also issued clear instructions that the Respondents cannot recover the amount from the pension and the amount already recovered should be refunded to the pensioners.

3. The Respondents (R1-4), in their brief Reply Statement have submitted that the case is related to excess payment of pension and its recovery rests with Pension Disbursing Agency (PDA). Since the Applicant’s husband was erroneously granted Service Pension in excess of his entitlement by the PDA, the PDA has correctly ordered to recover the excess amount paid. In view of the above, PDA Respondents are at no fault and the Applicant is under obligation to refund the excess amount paid to her husband. The OA is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.

4. During the course of arguments, Learned Counsel for the Applicant placed reliance on AFT (PB), New Delhi Order dt 04.04.2022 in OA No 1380/2020 in the case of Sgt Arun Kumar Gupta (Retd) Vs UOI & Ors and submitted that the Respondent PDA cannot recover the excess amount paid to her husband during his lifetime.

5. We have heard Learned Counsels for both the parties and perused the record available before us.

6. On the issue of refund of excess amount paid by the PDA on account of misrepresentation of the rules, Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in its 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 held that the principles laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (Supra) were not applicable in that case as the PDA is just an agent for disbursing the pension and the PDA is not an employer of the Applicant. Therefore, the excess payment made to the Applicant has to be refunded back by the pensioner.

7. In the present case, however, the Applicant’s husband was erroneously paid excess amount of Service Pension due to misinterpretation of rules by the Respondent PDA. The Applicant and the Respondent PDA have no relation of employee and employer and the Bank being merely an agent of the employer as a disbursing authority, if commits any mistake while disbursing any payment, is competent to recover the excess amount paid and the recovery does not fall within the purview of law laid down in the case of Rafiq Masih (Supra) and, hence, the Respondents have right to recover the excess amount paid to the pensioner and the Applicant’s husband was very much under obligation to refund the same to the Respondent PDA but no action had been initiated for recovery during his lifetime by the PDA. However, taking into consideration the facts that the overpayment was made to the service pensioner during his lifetime and not to the Applicant widow of ex-serviceman of Group ‘C’, and the Applicant is a family pensioner in receipt of only family pension and no excess amount paid towards Family Pension account, we direct the Respondents (R5&6) not to effect further recovery of the excess amount already paid to the Applicant’s husband out of the account of family pensioner, the widow of ex-serviceman.

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

9. No order on costs.

(SANJIV MITTAL)

(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR) MEMBER (A)

MEMBER (J)

Ssy/-