Ex Hav Gordhan Ram Godara vs UOI & Others on 20 November 2025

ORDER

20.11.2025 Respondents

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. 5,37,001/- paid to the Applicant as pension for the period from 01.02.2011 to 31.12.2020 and to refund the amount recovered from the pension account of the Applicant without his consent. Brief facts of the case as enunciated by the Applicant are that he was enrolled in the Army on 28.10.1990 and after rendering more than 17 years, 3 OA NO 135/2022 Ex Hav Gordhan Ram Godara Vs UOI & Ors months and four days of service, he was discharged from Service on medical grounds on 31.01.2008 for which he was qranted Service Pension for life for 17.5 years service wef 01.02.2008. The Applicant was also granted Disablity Element of Disability Pension @ 30% along with Rounding Off Benefits to 50% for three years from 01.02.2008 to 31.01.2011. The disability of the Applicant was not reviewed after three years, thus, the disability element of disability pension was to be discontinued wef 01.02.2011, however, the same was not discontinued by the Respondent PDA and they continued to pay him the disability element of disability pension till 31.12.2020 and, thus, paid excess amount of Rs. 4,96,290/- on this account. As per PCDA (P) Circular No 570 dt 31.10.2016, the Respondent PDA fixed Service Pension of the Applicant @ Rs. 20,034/- pm instead of Rs. 19,527/- pm, ie., Rs. 507/- pm plus DA thereon from 01.07.2014 to 31.12.2020 and, thus paid an excess amount of Rs. 40,711/-. In sum, the Respondents paid an excess amount of Rs. 5,37,001/ (Rs. 4,96,290 DE + Rs. 40,711 SE = Rs. 5,37,001/-) till 31.12.2020 for the period from Feb 2011 to Dec 2020. This recovery was noticed by CPPC/PDA on receipt of E-PPO dt 23.04.2019 and they started recovery from the Applicant in monthly instalments @ 6754/- pm without issuing any notice and granting him an opportunity of hearing which is against the principles of natural justice. The Applicant submits that he is an old aged ex-serviceman solely dependent for his livelihood on meagre amount of pension having no other source of income and is unable to refund such huge amount at this stage at the cost of mistake made by the Respondent PDA. 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 pensioner and the Respondents (R5&6) continued to pay the excess pension for more than five years, therefore, they cannot recover the excess amount paid to him. Further, based on the judgment in the Rafiq Masih (Supra), Govt of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pernsions, 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) have filed a detailed Reply Statement and while not disputing the basic facts presented by the Applicant, they have submitted that the Applicant did not appear before the RAMB after expiry of three years, therefore, he was not eligible for grant of disability element of disablity pension, however, the same was erroneously continued to be paid to the Applicant by the Respondent PDA. As per Rule 95 (b)()(1) of Pension Regulations for the Army, 2008 (Part-1), overpayment due to any other reason (including those involving fraud or grave misconduct) shall be recovered in instalments @ one third of the net (pension plus DA) payable each month, unless the pensioner concerned given his consent to pay suo moto a higher amount of instalments. The grounds raised by the Applicant are not sustainable and he has to refund the excess amount paid to him by the Respondent PDA.

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 amount for which he was not entitled and upon coming to know of this fact, the same was intimated to the Applicant and a sum of Rs. 1,14,800/- was recovered from the pension of the Applicant. However, the remaining amount of Rs. 4,22,183/- 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 deserves to be dismissed.

5. During the course of arquments, 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 Rafig 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 exXcess payment made to the Applicant has to be refunded back by him.

6. 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 Disability Element of Disability Pension @ 30% along with Rounding Off benefits to 50% for a period of three years only from 01.02.2008 to 31.01.2011, however, the Respondent PDA continued to pay the same after three years without any authority by Way of subsequent Corr PPO or otherwise. Similarly, in terms of Circular No 570 dt 31.10.2016, the respective PDAS are entitled to revise the pension of the pensioners without authority of corrigendum PPO. In the present case, the Service Pension of the Applicant was wrongly revised by the PDA which came to notice after issuance of e-PPO.

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 recover the excess payment made 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 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 service pension, we direct the Respondents (R5&6) not to affect further recovery of the excess amount paid to him. However, the amount already recovered from the Applicant by the Respondent PDA shall not be refunded to him. The OA is partly allowed. Pending Miscellaneous Application(s), if any, also stand disposed off.

9.

10. No order on costs. (SANJIV MITTAL) MEMBER (A) Ssy/ (GOVERDHAN BARDHAR) MEMBER (J)