High Court · 2025

...RESPONDENT Petition under Articre 226 0f tle constitution of rndia praying that in the 'cJu.t .ay oe circumstances stated in the affirravit fired therewith, the High pleased to issue a writ, order or Direction rnore particurarry one in the nature of writ of certiorari, cafling for records pertaining to the orders-passed by th. A;;; Force Tribunal Chennai, Circuit Bench at Hiyderabad, in O.A No.308 ot ZO1i, dated 12lOBl2021,set aside and the conseq,.,eotirlly quash the same lA NO: 1 OF 2O2s Petition under Section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support.of fl-e writpetition, the High court may ou pruri"J to !lgv- of all Proceedings of the originar Impugned ordir passed in oA No 308 of 2018 with MA 356 of 2018,dated 12tOBt2O21 Counsel for the Petitioners: SRl. R. ANURAG REP SRI.GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR Dy. SOLICITOR GEN. OF INDIA Counsel for the ResPondent: -- The Court made the following: ORDER i- - THE HON'BLE SRIIUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HON'BLE SMT.IUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA WRIT PETITION No.613 6oF 202:t ORDER: (Per Hon ble Sri Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili) This Writ Petition is filed aggrieved by th" order, dated

72.08.2027, passed in O.A.No.3Og of 201g by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Chennai, Circuit Bench at Hyderabad (for short,' the Tribunal').

2. Heard Sri R. Anurag, learned counsel representing the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, appearing for the petitioners.

3. It is the case o[ the petitioners that the respondent was enrolled in the Indian Army on 20.1.1 .1962 with terms of engagement for seven years Colour furvice and eight years Reserve Service. Afte'r l0 years and 32g days of service, he was transferreci to Reserve Establishment on 14-10-1923 and caled back into service. F{e was clischarged from service on 30.1.1,.1972 ulder Army Rule 13(3xlfl)(i) on completion of the period of qualifying service o[ 15 years 1 I days anrl was granted service pension of combined service I I I j I 2 AKS,J & ETD,J w.P.No.6136 of 2025 of Colour an,l Reserve Service. It is ttte furth er case of the petitioners that during verification, it has come to the notice of the petitioners that the respondent was erroneously given higher rark pension thar-r what he deserved. Accordingly, Proceedings, dated

04.12.2017, wr:re issued revising his pension in his cadre and proceedings, d.ated.20.72.2017, were also issued for recovery of the excess amoun: paicl to the respondent on erroneous fixation of his pension in a higher cadrc. Aggrieved by the said proceedings, dated.04.12.2017 and 20.72.20'17, the respondent has approached the Tribunal by fiiing the subject O.A. and the Tribunal, aide irnptgned order, dated 72.08.2021, was plcased to partly allow the subject O'A' and directecl tne petitiorlers not to reco\rer the excess amount paid to the responderrt, without aPPrc'ciating any of the contentions raised by the petitioners.

4. Learned counsel for thc petitioners had corltended that the respondent h.ns gir,,en an untlcrtaking that he would refund the excess amount, if an1,, paicl to him consequent uPon his pay fixation' Contrary to :he saicl unclertaking given by the respondent, the 3 AXS,J & E-TD,J W-P.No.6136 of2025 Tribunal has partly allowed the subject O.A. in favour of the respondent. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the Writ Petition by setting aside the impugned order, dated 12.08.202L, and allow the Writ Petition.

5. This Court, having considered the said submissions, is of the considered view that the issue raised in the present Writ Petition is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by the Honourable Supreme Court in State of Puniab and others v. Rafiq Masih I I (White Washer) and othersl, wherein the Honourable Supreme Court has held that the excess amount paid to the retired employees cannot be recoverecl. Admittedly, in the instant case, the respondent was dischargecl from military service way-back in the year 1977 and steps were taker-r to recover the excess amount paid to him only in the year 2017, which is nearly 40 years after the discharge of the responden t fron'r military service. Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in p.ra11ly al.lowing the subject O.A. by following the Iaw laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih's casc ' lzotsy + scc tt+ 4 AXS,J & ETDJ w.P.No.6136 of 2025 a.i (supra). Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order, dated 12.08.2027 6 AccordinlJly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costt; Miscellaneous Applications, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/- L. VIJAYA LAXMl ASSISTANT REGISTRAR t' SECTION OFFICER To,

1. One CC to SRl. GADI PRAVEEN KUN/AR Dv SOLICIT()R GEN OF INDIA Advocate [OPUC]

2. Two CD Copies KKS GJP ?r HIGH COURT DATED:2810212025 \ l I ORDER WP.No.6136 of 2025 -lrt' - --i: - C C) t 1t l ,.ir\ t \ ut zozs .r't)/ * Cv '\ aaT.., -'<'.-l -- r:=:-:J'- 1 I l I i I I I I i I I I ! i I DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS rA n \