Ramesh Chand Anged vs Union of India on 4 November 2026

ORDER

Justice Umesh Chandra Sharma, Member (J) This application has been filed under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007against the recovery of Rs. 2,52,622/- from service pension account and prays for the following reliefs:-

(i) Quashing of the recovery memos of December 2020 and May 2022 (Annexures A-3 and A-4), by which recovery of Rs. 2,52,622/- was imposed and standard recovery of Rs. 6,685/- per month from December 2020, later raised to Rs. 8,076/- per month from May 2022;

(ii) A direction to respondents No. 5 and 6 to stop the recovery and to release his pension as per entitlement; and

(iii) A direction to respondents No. 5 and 6 to refund the amount recovered from December 2020 till date.

2. Facts of the case are that the applicant was enrolled in the Indian Army on 28.09.1985 and was discharged on 30.04.2006 under Army Rule 13(3) III (V), read with Rule 2A, being in Low Medical Category A3(P) and unwilling to continue in service, after rendering 20 years, 07 months and 02 days of service. PCDA (P),

Allahabad granted him service pension vide PPO No. S/033506/2006 dated 08.08.2006 and the pension was revised on 26.04.2010 vide corrigendum PPO No. S/CORR/138032/2010 as per the 6th Central Pay Commission, and again on 18.01.2011 vide corrigendum PPO No. S/CORR/047440/2010. The pension is paid through his account with SBI, Nadaun.

3. The pension of the applicant was correctly paid till November 2020. Thereafter, without any show cause notice, respondent No. 6 began recovery at Rs. 6,685/- per month from 01.12.2020. The recovery was enhanced to Rs. 8,076/- per month from 01.05.2022.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the case of the applicant is also squarely covered by the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case ofState of Punjab Versus Rafiq Masih (White Washer), (2015) 4 SCC 334and Thomas Daniel v. State of Kerala (Civil Appeal No. 3115 of 2010, decided on 02.05.2022), and judgment of this Hon’ble Tribunal in Hav Satyawan Sharma v. Union of India (OA 547 of 2010), and Dharampal Singh's case decided by the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

5. Based on the contentions raised by learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the respondents has filed a written statement on behalf of the respondents and averred that no legal right of the applicant has been infringed, and that the applicant has notapproached this Tribunal with clean hands. After the PPOs of 2006, 2010 and 2011, PCDA (P), Allahabad issued an amended e-PPO No. 187200600890-2013 dated 29.06.2020 (Annexure R-4). It was followed by e-PPO No. 187200600890-

2014 dated 10.11.2020 (Annexure R-5). The applicant was entitled to a capitalised value of commutation of only Rs. 4,69,898/-, but was paid Rs. 7,22,520/-, leaving an excess of Rs. 2,52,622/-. PCDA (P) detected this immediately and directed recovery, and the Pension Disbursing Authority (PDA) started recovery in 2020 itself.

6. The respondents further submitted that as per scheme for payment of pension to Defence Pensioners, a pensioner furnishes an undertaking at the commencement of pension, agreeing that any overpayment made by mistake shall be recovered by the PDA and in this case, the excess was paid in 2020 and recovery began in 2020 itself, so the case does not fall within the conditions laid down in RafiqMasih’s case (supra) and that the matter really concerns the PDA and CPPC.

7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The following points arise for decision: (a) whether the preliminary objections are sustainable; (b) whether the recovery from a retired pensioner of the excess commutation amount is permissible in law; (c) whether the undertaking at the commencement of pension changes the position; and (d) whether the recovery was made in accordance with natural justice.

8. The submission that no legal right of the applicant has been infringed cannot be accepted. A deduction from a pensioner's monthly pension strikes at his entitlement to receive pension in full, and pension is a matter squarely within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal as a service matter under the Act. The objection of unclean hands also fails. The respondents do not allege that the applicant concealed any fact or made any misrepresentation to obtain the excess commutation amount. Nothing on record suggests suppression of any material fact. Both objections are not acceptable. As the recovery is continuing and pension is a recurring cause of action, no question of limitation arises.

9. The applicant retired in 2006. The excess payment came from the e-PPO dated 29.06.2020, issued by PCDA (P), Allahabad, and was identified by that very authority on 10.11.2020. The respondents' own case is that the error was committed by the pension sanctioning and disbursing authorities. The PDA and PCDA (P) are responsible for the payment and recovery. There is no allegation of fraud, misrepresentation or any contributory fault on the part of the applicant. In RafiqMasih’s case (supra), the Supreme Court considered a long line of decisions and held that recovery of excess payment made to an employee, without any misrepresentation or fraud on his part, would be impermissible in the situations summarised in para 18 of the judgment. These include (i) recovery from Class III and Class IV employees, (ii) recovery from retired employees, or employees due to retire within one year of the recovery order, (iii) recovery where the excess payment was made for more than five years before the recovery order, (iv) recovery where an employee was wrongly made to discharge duties of a higher post and paid accordingly, and (v) any other case where recovery would be iniquitous, harsh or arbitrary to such an extent as to outweigh the employer's right to recover. The principle has been followed in Thomas Daniel Versus State of Kerala (supra), where recovery of excess payment from a retired employee, made without fraud or misrepresentation, was set aside. It applies equally to defence pensioners, as the Supreme

Court held in Col. B.J. Akkara (Retd.) Versus Government of India, (2006) 11 SCC 709.

10. The respondents' contention is that the case falls outside these conditions because recovery began within first four months in the same year as the overpayment. None of the facts of this case are similar to the case laws cited above. Hence, none of the conditions laid down in the above judgments are attracted. The respondents have also placed on record copies of corrigendum PPO vide which the capitalised value of commutation was revised from Rs. 2,52,622/- on 08.08.2006 to Rs. 4,51,764/- on 18.01.2011. Subsequently, due to refixing of pay/pension on 29.06.2020, the capitalised value of commutation increased to Rs.4,69,898/-. Hence, the applicant was required to be paid the difference of Rs. 18,134/-. Instead due to an error Rs. 2,70,756/- got paid to the applicant vide e-PPO No. 187200600890-2013 dated 29.06.2020 (Annexure R-4). On realising the error, PCDA (P) immediately issued corrigendum e-PPO No. 187200600890- 2014 dated 10.11.2020 (Annexure R-5) for recovery of net excess payment of Rs. 2,52,622/- on account of capitalised value of pension.

11. Thereafter, recovery from the pension account was started in December 2020 without any show cause notice or opportunity of hearing to the applicant. However, copies of e-PPO giving the details and reasons for recovery were very much provided to the applicant. As the error was on the part of PCDA (P) so no show cause was required to be given to the applicant. Also the error was discovered fairly quickly and remedial action of recovery was initiated without much delay. The recovery was done in a manner that complied with the legal principles, Government Rules on excess payment and did not cause financial hardship to the applicant. Once the rationale of recovery and details were within the knowledge of the applicant, he should have come forward on his own to the refund the entire amount of Government funds (Taxpayers money) that was erroneously paid to him and did not legally belong to him. Hence, the respondents are very much within their rights to recover the overpaid amount and there is no merit in the case.

ORDER

12. For the reasons recorded above, the respondents are well within their right to recover the erroneously paid excess amount on account of revised capitalised value of commutation. The facts of the case can be very well distinguished from the case laws cited by the applicant. Accordingly, there being no merit in the case, the same is dismissed.

13. Parties are left to bear their own costs.

14. MA(s) pending, if any, shall stand disposed of.

(Air Marshal Manavendra Singh) (Justice Umesh Chandra Sharma) Member (A)

Member (J) Wednesday, 04th Nov. 2026 SP Reportable or Not: