Mr. Sudeep Singh and Mr. Rishabh Bhardwaj, Advs v. UNION OF INDIA ANR

Judgment

1. The petitioner retired from the Indo-Tibetan Border Police1 in

1999. On the basis of the pay scale of ₹12,000-375-16,500/-, which was being drawn by him at that time, he was sanctioned pension @ ₹8,523/- w.e.f. 1 November 1999. We deem it appropriate to provide a screen shot of the Pension Payment Order2 issued by the respondents thus: Signature Not Verified 1 “ITBP”, hereinafter 2 “PPO”, hereinafter Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:03.05.2025 16:36:31 W.P.(C) 8270/2017

2. Subsequently, in 2006, consequent on the recommendation of the 6th Central Pay Commission, the petitioner’s pension was revised to ₹20,955/-. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:03.05.2025 16:36:31 W.P.(C) 8270/2017

3. The petitioner continued to be paid the revised pension till

2016. In 2016, the respondents claim to have realised that, while re- fixing his pension in 2006, the petitioner’s pay scale have been erroneously fixed, by treating his pay scale as ₹14,300-400-18,300/- instead of ₹12,000-375-16,500/-. Accordingly, a decision was taken to downwardly revise petitioner’s pension. Though communication was addressed to the petitioner by the respondents, the respondents wrote to the Manager, Centralised Pension Processing Centre, State Bank of India, on 21 September 2016, thus: “No.231849903377/1986359/A2 Diary No: PR316055349 Date:21/SEP/2016 To, THE MANAGER STATE BANK OF INDIA, CENTRALISED PENSION PROCESSING CENTRE CHANDINI CHOWK BRANCH PREMISES DELHI, 110006

SUB: REVISION OF PENSION OF PANDEY SHRI MC, HOLDER OF PPO NUMBER: 231849903377, AT BRANCH (0001076): STATE BANK OF INDIA, RK PURAM, NEW DELHI, DELHI, ACCOUNT NUMBER: AC:10932798958 Sir/Madam, An amendment letter No W023184160800348 DT: 06/JUN/2016 in respect of PPO mentioned above is forwarded herewith in original. The amount mentioned in this SSA may be verified from original documents for payments and modifications may be carried out in both the halves of the ppo arranged as under: Date Of Birth (Pensioner): 08/11/1947 Pay Scale (31/12/2005): 12750-375-16500 Pay Band: 15600-39100 Grade Pay: Rs.7600/- Last Pay Draw: NIL Qualifying Service (Y-M-D): 29-9-15 Name of spouse: PANDEY SMT JANKI Date Of Birth (Spouse): Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:03.05.2025 16:36:31 W.P.(C) 8270/2017 12/07/1950 Revised Pension (Per Month) REVISED BASIC PENSION: Rs.19264/-

1. 01/JAN/2006 (Rupees Nineteen Thousand Two Hundred Sixty Four Only) W.E.F.

2. REVISED PENSION COMMUTED: Rs. 3409/- (Rupees Three Thousand Four Hundred Nine Only)

3. REVISED REDUCED PENSION: Rs.15855/- W.E.F.: 01/JAN/2006 (Rupees Fifteen Thousand Eight Hundred Fifty Five Only)

4. AMOUNT OF DIFFERENTIAL COMMUTATION PAYABLE: NO CHANGE

5. ADDITIONAL DEATH/RETIREMENT GRATUITY PAYABLE: NO CHANGE

6. ADDITIONAL PENSION (80 YEARS AND ABOVE): AS APPLICABLE

7. CONSTANT ATTENDANT ALLOWANCE: NIL

8. REVISED FAMILY PENSION AT ENHANCED RATE: Rs.19264/- FROM: To: 07/NOV/2011 (Rupees Nineteen Thousand Two Hundred Sixty Four Only) AT NORMAL RATE: Rs.12714/- FROM 08/NOV/2011 TO: TILL DEATH/REMARRIAGE (Rupees Twelve Thousand Seven Hundred Fourteen Only)

9. Note: (a) Reduced Pension as per col. 3 will take effect from the date CVP paid by PAO & differential commuted value is/was credited into the pensioner’s account by the bank. Commuted value of pension will be restored after 15 years from the date of credit by the Abnk or date of payment made by PAO. (b) Pension/Provisional Pension, DA Relief etc., if paid may be adjusted suitably. (c) D.R to be allowed as admissible from time to time for people who are not re-employed. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:03.05.2025 16:36:31 W.P.(C) 8270/2017 (d) 100% Pension/Family Pension arrear as per GOI order based on 6th CPC is payable. Revised Gratuity/Commutation Amount should be paid in full based on this revision authority. (e) Please see reverse for other guidelines for banks and pensioners. (f) None Yours Faithfully Pay & Accounts Officer”

4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid communication, the petitioner has approached this Court by means of the present writ petition. As it transpires, even before the writ petition was filed, an amount of ₹1,71,500/- had already been recovered from the petitioner. A further amount of ₹1,64,922/- was also recovered from the petitioner. Consequent to order dated 9 January 2018, the amount of ₹1,64,922/- stands returned to the petitioner with interest. An amount of ₹1,71,500/- which was recovered prior to the petitioner approaching the Court is still remaining with the respondents.

5. The petitioner, in the writ petition, has challenged the decision of the respondents to effect recoveries from the petitioner’s pension.

6. We have heard Mr. Sudeep Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Sangeeta Rai, learned Senior Panel Counsel for the Union of India at some length.

7. The issue in controversy is no longer res integra, as it stands settled by the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:03.05.2025 16:36:31 W.P.(C) 8270/2017 Rafiq Masih (White Washer)3. Prior to the decision in Rafiq Masih, the department have been effecting recoveries on the basis of the earlier judgment of the Supreme Court in Chandi Prasad Uniyal v State of Uttarakhand4. The Supreme Court took into account the said decision as well as several other judgments, including Shyam Babu Verma v UOI5, Sahib Ram v State of Haryana6, and ultimately identify certain situations in which recoveries would not be permissible. Para 18 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih, which so holds reads as under: “18. It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship which would govern employees on the issue of recovery, where payments have mistakenly been made by the employer, in excess of their entitlement. Be that as it may, based on the decisions referred to hereinabove, we may, as a ready reference, summarise the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law: (i) Recovery from the employees belonging to Class III and Class IV service (or Group C and Group D service). (ii) Recovery from the retired employees, or the employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery. (iii) Recovery from the employees, when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery is issued. (iv) Recovery in cases where an employee has wrongfully been required to discharge duties of a higher post, and has been paid accordingly, even though he should have rightfully been required to work against an inferior post. (v) In any other case, where the court arrives at the conclusion, that recovery if made from the employee,