Surender Singh vs Union of India on 4 November 2026

ORDER

Justice Umesh Chandra Sharma, Member (Judicial)

The husband of the applicant had filed the present original application for quashing the impugned letters dated 25.05.2018 and 21.06.2018 (Annexures A-6 and Annexure A-7) and a prayer to not deduct the Dearness Allowance on military pension payable to original applicant. He had also prayed for directions to respondents for refund of the recovered amount of Rs. 60,000/-.

2. Brief facts of the case are that Surender Singh-original applicant was enrolled in the Indian Army on 22.02.1985 and was invalided from service on 19.07.1998 after rendering 13 years ,04 months and 19 days of service as a Sepoy in the Pay Scale of Rs. 3250-70-4300. Thereafter, through registration with the Ex- Serviceman Cell, Hamirpur,the applicant was engaged as Pump Operator (Civil Post) on contract basis in I&PH Department, Himachal Pradesh (respondent no. 4) on 09.11.2006 (Annexure A-1). Services of the applicant were regularised as a Pump Operator (Civil Post) on 27.04.2013 in the Pay Scale of Rs. 5910-20200- GP-1900 with initial start of Rs. 7810/- (Annexure A-2). The pay of the applicant as a Class IV employee was fixed at the minimum of Pay Scale to the post of Pump Operator. The applicant alleges that he being Defence Forces Personnel particularly PBOR (Person Below Officers Rank) is entitled to Dearness Relief on his pension. The pension of the applicant was fixed as per PPO (Annexure A-3) and payment of pension is being disbursed through the Bank. Subsequently, respondent no. 2 issued Defence Pension Payment Instruction, 2013 which applies to pensioners of Armed Forces and Defence Civilians that draw pension from Pension Disbursing Authorities. A relevant extract of Chapter IV, clause 100 reads as under:-

“Dearness Relief at the rate prescribed from time to time by the Government to those pensioners who held post below Group A and those servicemen who held the post below the rank of commissioned officer at the time of their retirement, will be payable w.e.f. 18.07.1997 who submit the requisite certificate to their pension disbursing authorities from the re- employing authorities indicating the following:

(i) The re-employed pensioner retired from civil or military post in the Central Government and was holding a post not included in classified as Group A or a post below the rank of commissioned officer in Armed Forces.

(ii) The entire amount of pension sanctioned by the Central Government was ignored in fixation of the pay on re-employment i.e. no part of pension was taken into account in such fixation of pay in the pay scale of the post in which the Central Government retired/retiree officer was re-employed.

(iii) The pay of re-employed was/is fixed at the minimum of the pay scale of the post which he had/has been initially re-employed after his retirement from central government.

(iv) If the pay fixed at higher stage because of advance increments and no protection of last pay drawn in being given.

3. The applicant further alleges that vide Circular No. 165 issued by respondent no. 2 dated 22.02.2013 ( Annexure A-4) it is clarified that entire pension admissible is to be ignored in case of pensioner, who held post below Group A or below the ranks of commissioned officers at the time of retirement and their pay on re-employment is to be fixed at the minimum of the Pay Scale of the post they are re-employed and such pensioners will be entitled to dearness relief on their pension at the rates applicable from time to time. A perusal of clause 7 (b)(2) of the same shows that for PBOR retired before attaining age of 55 years and re- employed thereafter with their pay fixed at higher stage because of advance increments given and no protection of the last pay drawn, the pay should be treated as fixed at a minimum only for the purpose of allowing dearness relief on pension. However, the respondent-Department vide letter dated 25.05.2018 ( Annexure A-

6) has withdrawn the benefit of Dearness Allowances granted with the pension to the applicant without affording an opportunity of hearing to the applicant and further directed him to deposit/recover from him a sum of Rs. 2,21,271/-. In pursuance to that, the respondents initiated the recovery of an amount of

Rs. 60,000/- received in the form of medical reimbursement in pension account, which has caused huge financial loss to the applicant. The respondent no. 3 again vide letter dated 21.06.2018 ( Annexure A-7) directed the applicant to deposit a bank draft in lieu of recovery amount of Rs. 2,21,271/- and the respondents illegally started recovering the aforesaid amount and deducted an amount of Rs, 76,000/- from pension account of the applicant. 4. A relevant extract of Chapter V, clause 103(2) of Defence Pension Payment Instruction, 2013 which deals with demands and recoveries to pensioners of Armed Forces and Defence Civilians while drawing pension from Pension Disbursing Authorities is reproduced as under:-

“103(2). Overpayments of pension not detected within 12 months of the date of first erroneous charge should not be recovered from pensioners dues without the order of the Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (Pensions). If there are any due to the pensioner the payment of same may be withheld pending decision for the overpayment made. As soon as overpayments comes to the notice of the pension disbursing authority he should report the full details of case to the Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (Pension) who will decide the case himself, if it lies within his financial powers or he will obtain the order of competent authority of government of India as the case may be. To avoid hardships to the pensioner, payment for current period, however should be continued at the correct rate admissible. On the decision of the case by the competent authority, the orders passed will be communicated to the pension disbursing authority by the Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (Pensions).”

5. In view of the aforesaid instruction, impugned action of respondent no. 3 for initiating recovery is patently illegal and arbitrary. Hence the applicant has filed the present Original Application

6. In the written statement, the respondents have pleaded that the original applicant-Surender Singh was enrolled in the Army (Corps of EME) on 22.02.1985 and was invalided out from service w.e.f. 18.07.1998 under Rule 13 (3) item III

(iii) of Army Rules, 1954. He was granted service element for life w.e.f. 19.07.1998 and disability element w.e.f. 19.09.2016 to 18.09.2017 vide PPO dated 07.09.2017 and for life w.e.f. 19.09.2017 vide corrigendum PPO dated 16.04.2018 ( Annexure R-1 Colly). He was also paid Rs. 42,550/- as Death cum Retirement

Gratuity, Commutation Rs. 1,13,592/- and AGI Regular Disability Rs. 59,523/-.

7. Thereafter, the Irrigation–cum-Public Health Department, Barsar, Himachal Pradesh had intimated vide their letter dated 22.08.2013 (Annexure R-2) that the applicant was appointed as Pump Operator on contract basis w.e.f. 08.11.2006 and was regularised w.e.f. 8.11.2006. On the request of I&PH Department, EME Records forwarded the requisite documents duly verified by PAO (OR) EME vide EME Records letter dated 11.12.2013 (Annexure R-3). The respondents further averred that since the case was related to recovery of Dearness Allowance on military pension of the applicant, PCDA(P), Prayagraj and DPDO, Hamirpur were asked to submit their comments vide EME Records letter dated 24.07.2018.The DPDO, Hamirpur vide letter dated 07.08.2018 ( Annexure R-4) commented that neither the applicant nor his re-employer had given any information of his re-employment. As per pay fixation provided to them by the re- employer, it is noticed that giving benefits of the Army service, his initial pay was fixed at Rs. 10930/- which should have been at Rs. 7810/-. DPDO has further clarified that, on re-employment of an Ex-Serviceman, if his pay is fixed at minimum( including advance increment) he will be entitled for dearness allowance after 18.07.1997 on the military pension. In the instant case, the applicant’s initial pay should have been fixed at Rs. 7810/- ( i.e. minimum pay) on re-employment but the re-employer by giving the military service benefits to the applicant, has fixed his initial pay at Rs. 10930/-. Hence, the present Original Application is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

9. From the perusal of record it transpired that Surender Singh-original applicant was enrolled in the Indian Army on 22.02.1985 and was discharged from service on 19.07.1998 after rendering 13 years ,04 months and 19 days of service as Sepoy in the

Pay Scale of Rs. 3250-70-4300. Thereafter, he was re-employed as Pump Operator (Civil Post) on contract basis in Irrigation & Public Health Department, Himachal Pradesh on 09.11.2006. His services were regularised as a Pump Operator (Civil Post) on 27.04.2013 in the Pay Scale of Rs. 5910-20200-GP-1900 with initial start of Rs. 7810/-. The pay of the applicant being a Class IV employee was fixed at the minimum of Pay Scale to the post of Pump Operator.

10. The relevant clause 7 (b)(2) of Circular No. 165 dated 22.02.2013 regarding Payment of dearness relief during re-employment of pensioners/ family pensioners reads as under:- “The ex-serviceman (PBOR), who retired before attaining age of 55 years and re-employed thereafter and their pay fixed at a higher stage because of advance increments and no protection of the last pay drawn in being given, the pay should be treated as fixed at a minimum only for the purpose of ignoring the entire pension and allowing dearness relief on pension.”

11. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant was directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 2,21,271/- in the bank by the respondents and they have already deducted an amount of Rs. 76,000/-from pension account of the applicant. There is no evidence that it was due to fault, mis- representation or fraud on the part of the applicant.

12. He has further argued that the issue involved in this case is no longer res integra now after the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Punjab and Others etc. vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc. 2015

(1) SCT 195. The facts of this case being similar, the same may also be disposed of on the same lines.

13. Learned counsel for the respondents has not been able to distinguish this case from the case of Rafiq Masih ( supra).

14. From perusal of the record, it transpires that the applicant has not played any fraud or misrepresentation but the mistake was caused by the respondents and the payment was made without any fault or misrepresentation on part of the applicant. It was the fault on the part of the respondents. Hence, the case is well covered by the principles laid down in Rafiq Masih (supra).

14. In view of the above, the Original Application is allowed and the impugned letters dated 25.05.2018 ( Annexure A-6) and dated 21.06.2018 ( Annexure A-7) are quashed and the respondents are directed not to deduct the Dearness Allowance on military pension payable to the applicant. The respondents are further directed to refund recovered amount of Rs. 60,000/- and Rs. 76,000/- illegally deducted from pension to the applicant alongwith interest @ 6% per annum within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order by learned counsel for the respondents/ OIC, Legal Cell, failing which the amounts shall become payable with interest @ 8% per annum for the delayed period.

15. No order as to costs.

(Air Marshal Manavendra Singh)

(Justice Umesh Chandra Sharma) Member (A)

Member (J) Wednesday, 04th Nov, 2026 AKS

Reportable or Not