Smt Neelam Kanwar WdO Sgt Durjan Singh Bhati 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. 5,64,021/- paid to the Applicant on account of enhanced rate of ordinary family pension for the period from 01.01.2006 to 31.07.2018, refund the already recovered amount from her pension account and to refund Rs. 30,863/- recovered on account of TDS for financial year 2016-17. OA No 90/2020O Smt Neelam Kanwar Vs UOI & Ors

2. Bfief facts of the case as enunciated by the Applicant are that her husband was enrolled in the Air Force on 26.05.1973 and after rendering more than 16 years of service, he was invalided out of Service on 03.01.1990 for which he was granted Service Pension for life wef 04.01.1990. After death of her husband on 06.07.1992, the Applicant was granted enhanced rate of family pension for a period of seven years from 07.07.1992 to 06.07.1999 and thereafter normal rate of family pension from 07.07.1999. However, the Respondent PDA (R586) continued to grant her enhanced rate of family pension till July 2018 and, thereafter, without intimating the Applicant started making recovery of Rs. 6,64,021/- by debiting in monthly instalments @ Rs. 5172/- wef Aug 2018. Thereafter, Respondent PDA (R586) also recovered a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- on 25.10.2018 out of her pension account without her consent. The Applicant submits that the Respondents continued to grant her enhanced rate of family pension on their own and the Applicant is not at fault as she made no false answers at any stage. Further, the Respondents also recovered Rs. 3,00,000/- from her pension account without her consent which is against the principles of natural justice. Further, a sum of Rs. 30,863/ against TDS for the financial year 2016-17 is found debited from family pension of the Applicant, out of the amount of excess payment which needs to be refunded to the Applicant. 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 Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and contended that the Applicant is a family pensioner and the Respondents (R586) continued to pay the excess pension for more than five years, therefore, they cannot recover the excess amount paid to her. 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 instructions on this issue. Learned Counsel for the Applicant also placed reliance on Hon'ble Bombay High Court judgment dt 27.03.2023 in WP No 4835/2021 in the case of Sudha Vs Zilla Parishad & Ors, AFT (RB), Lucknow Order dt 10.08.2022 in 0A No 266/2021 in the case of kKashinath Tiwari Vs Uor & Ors, AFT (PB) Order dt 18.10.2023 in 0A No 3060/2022 in the case of Vinod Sharma Vs UOI & Ors and OA No 9O/2020 Smt Neelam Kanwar Vs UOI & Ors submitted that the Respondents 'cannot recover the amount from the pension and the amount already recovered should be refunded to the Applicant.

The Respondents (R1-4) have filed a detailed Reply Statement and while not disputing the basic facts presented by the Applicant, they have submitted that as per PPO 08/14/B/13666/1990, enhanced rate of family pension @Rs. 606/- and normal rate of pension @ 450/- was sanctioned to the Applicant in accordance with 4th CPC. The enhanced rate of family pension was payable to the Applicant from 07.07.1992 to 06.07.1999 (for seven years from the date following the death of veteran) and thereafter normal rate of family pension wef 07.07.1999. Thereafter, a Corr PPO No 08/14/B/2422/2011 was isSued wherein the rate of family pension was revised in accordance with 5tn CPC wef 01.01.1996. The onus of correct payment, revision of pension along with applicable dearness relief and recovery of excess payment of pension lies upon the pensioner's Pension Disbursing Agency (PDA), which in this case is SBI, Air Force Station, Jodhpur. Further, Govt of India, Ministry of Finance vide their letter dt 16.05.2018 have also issued necessary guidelines to concerned PDAS for undertaking recovery of excess paid pension from pensioners.

4. The Respondents PDA (R5&6) have submitted that the Applicant was wrongly paid regular pension instead of family pension for which she was not entitled for the period from 01.01.2006 to 31.07.2018 and upon coming to know of this fact, the same was intimated to the Applicant and recovery effected from the Applicant. 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 (R58&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 nó fault and the OA deserves 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 0s just an agent for distbursing 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. On perusal of PPO No 08/14/B/13666/1990 placed on record by Respondents (R1-4) at Annexure R/1, it is clear that the enhanced rate of family pension was sanctioned @ Rs. 606/- pm for a period of seven years from the date following the death or upto 28.11.2015, whichever is earlier and Further, on normal rate of family pension was sanctioned @ 450/- pm. implementation of 5th CPC, vide Corr PPO 08/14/B/2422/2001 dt 13.02.2002 (Annexure R/2), the rate of enhanced rate of family pension was revised from Rs. 606/- pm to Rs. 2031/- pm and normal rate off family pension from Rs. 450/- pm to Rs. 1414/- pm wef 01.01.1996. Since, the Applicant was eligible for grant of enhanced rate of family pension for a period of seven years following death of her husband on 06.07.1992, it was the responsibility of the Respondent PDA to grant her the enhanced rate of family pension for a period of seven years only in terms of Original PPO No 08/14/B/13666/1990. However, they continued to grant her the enhanced rate of family pension till July 2018 erroneously. The Hon'ble 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 be recovered and the reCovery does not fall within the purview of law laid down in the case of Rafiq Masih (Supra). The law laid down in the case of

Rafig Masih (Supra) shall operáte 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 make a refund of the excess amount paid to her by the Respondents (R5&6). However, taking into consideration the facts that the Applicant is an old aged family pensioner with meagre amount of family pension, we direct the Respondents (R58&6) not to effect further recovery of the excess amount paid to her on account of enhanced rate of family pension. However, the amount already recovered from the Applicant by the Respondent PDA need not be refunded to her. The prayer of the Applicant for refund of Rs. 30,863/- against TDS for the financial year 2016-17 is rejected as the aforesaid amount has been deposited by the Bank in the Income Tax Department and the Applicant may get refunded through filing Income Tax Returns, if desired.

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)