Ex Reservist Jabar Singh vs UOI & Others on 20 November 2025

ORDER

20.11.2025 Respondents HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVERDHAN BARDHAR, MEMBER (J) HON'BLE MR. SANJIV MITTAL, MEMBER (A)

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. 5,97,633/- paid to the Applicant for the period from 01.07.2009 to 30.04.2018 and to refund the amount recovered from the pension account of the Applicant without his consent.

2. Brief facts of the case as enunciated by the Applicant are that he was enrolled in the Army on 19.05.1964 and after completion of combined colour and reserve sevice, he was transferred to pension establishment and granted OA No 31/2019 Ex Reservist Jabar Singh Vs UOI & Ors

Reservist Pension wef 01.06.1984 and the same was revised from time to time. The Respondents revised his Reservist Pension at a higher rate for the period from 01.07.2009 to 30.04.2018 which resulted in excess payment of Rs. 5,97,633/- to the Applicant. On coming to the knowledge of Respondents (R485), the Applicant was issued Show Cause Notice dt 01.01.2019 for refund of excess amount paid to the Applicant. The Applicant submits that the Applicant had no knowledge of excess amount of pension being paid to him. He is an old aged pensioner with no other means of survival. The Respondents (R4&5) started recovery from the meagre amount of Reservist Pension due to which he is facing financial hardships and finding it difficult to make a refund of huge amount of Rs. 5,97,633/- to the Respondents (R4&5). 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 State of Punjab & Ors Vs Rafig Masih (White Washer) and contended that the Applicant is a pensioner and the Respondents (R5&6) continued to pay the excess pension for approx. nine years, therefore, they cannot recover the excess amount paid to him. Further, based on the judgment in the Rafig 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 go excess paymnent of pension and its recovery rests with Pension Disbursing Agency (PDA), ie., SBI (CPPC), Sojat City Branch, District Pali (Rajasthan) from where the Applicant is drawing Reservist Pension and, hence, they may be asked to offer comments on this issue.

4. The Respondents PDA (R5&6) have not refuted the facts presented by the Applicant and have submitted that the Applicant was wrongly paid the Service Pension for the rank of regular Sepoy instead of a Reservist for the period from 01.07.2009 to 30.04.2009 for which he was not entitled and upon coming to know of this fact, the same was intimated to the Applicant for OA No 31/2019 Ex Reservist Jabar Singh Vs UOI & Ors recóvery of the excess amount of Rs. 5,97,633/- paid to him. A Sum of Rs. 3,22,520/- has so far been recovered from the pension of the Applicant, however, the remaining amount of Rs. 2,75,113/- is yet to be recovered. The excess amount has been calculated on the part of Respondent PCDA and not by the answering Respondents. However, on instructions from the Respondent PCDA, the recovery proceedings had been initiated against the Applicant. Further, the PCDA only is having the authority to grant/approve/revise any amount of pension payable to the pensioner and/or his/her family (in the case of family pension), wherein the Respondents PDA have no authority and they can only forward any document/claim so submitted by the pensioner/family pensioner along-with requisite documents and in the instant matter, the excess pension has been paid to the Applicant and the Respondent PCDA has instructed the Respondents (R5&6) to recover the same from monthly pension of the Applicant. In view of the above, Respondents (R5&6) have reiterated that they are at no fault and the OA desenves to be dismissed.

5. During the course of arguments, Learned Counsel for the Respondents (R5&6) 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. Therefore, the excess payment made to the Applicant has to be refunded back by the pensioner.

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

7. It is not in dispute that the Applicant was granted Reservist Pension for life, however, the Respondent PDA erroneously revised his pension for the rank of regular Sepoy for the period from 01.07.2009 to 30.04.2018. The Honble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Tulsi Devi (Supra) has settled that the Bank is merely an agent and the agent as a disbursing authority, if commits any mistake while disbursing any payment, is liable to recOver the excess OA No 31/2019 Ex Reservist Jabar Singh Vs UOI& Ors amount paid and the recovery does not fall within the purview of láw laid down in the case of Rafiq Masih (Supra). The law laid down in the case of Rafiq Masih (Supra) 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. In the present case, the excess payment was made by the Respondents (R5&6), which is merely a disbursing agency and not the employer of the Applicant and, hence, the Applicant is liable to refund the excess amount paid to him by the Respondents (R5&6). However, taking into consideration the facts that the Applicant is a pensioner with meagre amount of pension and it continued to be paid for nine long years, we direct the Respondents (R5&6) not to affect further recovery of the excess amount already paid to him to avoid financial hardship to him as he might have already utilized the excess payment made to him. However, the amount already recovered from the Applicant by the Respondent PDA need not be refunded to him.

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

9. No order on costs. (SANJIV MITTAL) MEMBER (A) Ssy/ (GOVERDHAN BARDHAR) MEMBER (J) OA No 31/2019 Ex Reservist Jabar Singh Vs UOl & Ors