Ex Gdr (Reservist) Murad Ali vs UOI & Others on 21 August 2026

O R D E R

21.08.2026

1. Under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007, the Applicant has filed this OA praying for quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 31/7/2021 and that the Respondents be directed to restrain the recovery effected from the pension account of the applicant by ordering stay on recovery. He has also prayed for directing the Respondents to refund the entire amount so far deducted from the pension account of the applicant with interest as may be decided by the Hon’ble Tribunal alongwith heavy costs.

2. The Respondents No 1 to 3 have filed their Reply Statement and submitted that the applicant was enrolled in the Army on 21/10/1960 and was discharged from service on 30/11/1975 under Army Rule 13 (3) item III

(i) on completion of his combined colour and reserve service. He had rendered 15 years, one month and 12 days of combined service and was granted Reservist Pension for life, which was revised from time to time. He was also granted additional pension @20% on completion of his 80 years of age on 04/10/2020. With regard to effecting recovery from the pension account of the applicant, the Respondent No 4, PDA, ie, State Bank of India, CPPC Jaipur, has also filed their reply statement. They submitted that due to an inadvertent mistake on their part they have revised the pension of the applicant wef 01/7/2009 for the rank of Sepoy instead of Reservist, resulting in over payment of pension of Rs 9,62,925/- to the applicant for the period 01/7/2009 to 31/7/2021 to which he was not entitled. Therefore, the Respondent PDA has effected a recovery of Rs 7308/- pm wef 01/8/2021. Further, the applicant has also submitted an undertaking dated 29/8/1983 to the PDA wherein he undertook to refund or make good any amount to which he is not entitled or any amount which may be credited to him in his account in excess to the amount to which he is or would be entitled. In support of their arguments, the Respondent PDA has placed reliance on the Judgment dated 07/1/2025 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Bench at Jaipur in DB CWP No 18546/2018 in the case of State Bank of India Vs Tulsi Devi, wherein it was held that the recovery does not fall within the purview of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of RafiqMasih as the ibid order of the Hon’ble Apex Court shall operate only when excess payment and its receipt is a transfer between employer and employee and not when an intermediary or a payment facilitator disburses the same, on its own, by mistake. They have further buttressed their arguments by relying upon the Judgment dated 29/7/2016 passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of High Court of Punjab and Haryana Vs Jadged Singh, in Civil Appeal No 3500/2006.

3. During the course of hearing held on 21/8/2026, counsel for the applicant has passionately submitted that the applicant is in his twilight years being an octogenarian and prayed for reducing the quantum of recovery earlier ordered by this Tribunal to the tune of Rs 1000/- or Rs 1500/- pm.

4. We have heard the counsels for the parties and perused the material on record.

5. It is evident from the material on record that the applicant was granted Reservist Pension wef 01/12/1975 for his combined colour and reserve service of 15 years and 12 days, which was revised from time to time in terms of extant policy with regard to grant of Reservist Pension. As per the reply statement of PDA, ie, State Bank of India, due to an inadvertent mistake on their part, the applicant was paid an overpayment of Rs.9,62,925/-, for the period 01/7/2009 to 31/7/2021 consequent to the revision of pension wef 01/7/2009 for the rank of Sepoy which he was not entitled to, he being a Reservist Pensioner. Upon realizing the mistake, the PDA has started effecting recovery from the pension account of the applicant.

6. Vide Order dated 05/1/2024, this Tribunal had directed the Respondent PDA not to recover more than Rs 3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) per month from the pension account of the applicant towards the recovery of excess pension paid to the applicant till the final disposal of the OA.

7. In view of the foregoing and taking into consideration the entire gamut of issue and the fact that the applicant got unjustly enriched with a total amount of Rs 9,62,925/- which was not his legitimate dues, we dispose off the OA with a direction to the Respondent PDA that further recovery of excess pension paid to the applicant from the pension account of the applicant shall continue till it is fully liquidated, but at a reduced amount of

Rs 2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) per month from the pension account of the applicant wef September 2026.

8. The OA is disposed off. No order on costs.

9. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed off.

(SANJIV MITTAL)

(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR) MEMBER (A)

MEMBER (J)

cda/-