High Court · 2025

1. Heard Sri Umesh Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

2. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that husband of petitioner namely late Maqbool Ahmad was initially appointed as Assistant Engineer on 04.11.1977 and subsequently promoted to the post of Executive Engineer on 21.01.1995 and he retired from service on 30.11.2006. After his retirement Pension Payment Order (hereinafter referred to as "the PPO") was issued by the Directorate of Pension which was subsequently revised on 07.06.2018 and pension was paid to the husband of petitioner when he was alive. Husband of petitioner died on 25.04.2021 and his death was duly intimated to the Chief Treasury Officer and thereafter family pension was sanctioned and paid to the petitioner as per terms of revised PPO dated 27.09.2021.

3. It seems that certain disciplinary proceedings were pending against husband of petitioner which came to be concluded after his superannuation and in one of the disciplinary proceedings by punishment order dated 25.04.2011, deduction of 10% of pension was ordered while in the second disciplinary proceedings punishment order dated 10.07.2012 was passed whereby deduction of 15% of the pension was inflicted. Accordingly, total deduction of 25% from the pension of husband of petitioner was ordered.

4. From 2013 onwards, husband of petitioner was being paid pension after deduction of 25% of the amount which was directed to be deducted in the disciplinary proceedings. Subsequently, recommendations of 7th Pay Commission came to be accepted and implemented by the State of U.P. and hence revised PPO was issued to the petitioner in 2018. In the said PPO there was no mention of deduction of 25% of the amount which was to be recovered and accordingly husband of petitioner continued to received full pension till his death. It is when question of payment of family pension to the petitioner was considered, then it was realised that excess payment for an amount of Rs.8,98,002/- has been made in excess and it was sought to be recovered from the petitioner from the family pension.

5. In the aforesaid circumstances, present writ petition has been filed seeking direction to the respondents to refund the amount of Rs.8,98,002/- which has been deducted from the family pension of petitioner.

6. It has been next submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that payment of pension is not a bounty, but it is being paid as per rules made by the respondents. It is stated that recovery can only be made from the pension/family pension when the same is prescribed by any rule. It is stated that there is no provision for recovery of excess amount paid to the spouse of government servant which may be recovered from the family pension paid after death of government servant.

7. Learned Standing Counsel has opposed the writ petition and has submitted that in this regard specific provisions have been made in Clause 351A of the Financial Handbook which provides for recovery to be made from the pension, in case some loss is caused to the State exchequer. It is further submitted that similar rules has been framed under Clause 919A of the Financial Handbook, where recovery from pension can be made in case any loss is caused to the State exchequer.

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

9. It is noticed that there is no provision pertaining to recovery from family pension. It is submitted that in the present case there is no concealment or fraud committed by the petitioner or her husband inasmuch as from the year 2013 onwards till 2018, 25% amount was being deducted from the pension payable to the husband of petitioner.

10. It seems that when revised PPO was issued by the respondents after the recommendations of 7th Pay Commission were accepted, the aspect of deduction of 25% of pension was not included in the PPO and on account of which husband of petitioner continued to received pension without any deduction.

11. The respondents in their counter affidavit have also admitted their mistake and submitted that it was inadvertent mistake, due to which excess payment was made. The respondents have relied upon the Government Order dated 24.08.1966 for making recovery which has been imposed upon the petitioner. Despite the fact that admittedly no order has been passed by the respondents prior to making such recovery. In the said Government Order in Clause 10 it has been provided that in case Government servant or pensioner chooses a particular proposal/option pertaining to admissibility of his/her dues, and in case subsequently it is found that he is not entitled for the same, only in such circumstances, excess payment made to him/her on the basis of such option, recovery can be made.

12. Clearly, Government Order dated 24.08.1966 does not apply to the facts of the present case, inasmuch as there is no dispute with regard to the fact that recovery from the pension was being effected only on account of the punishment inflicted upon the husband of petitioner and not due to choosing of any proposal/option which was accepted by the husband of petitioner.

13. In the light of above, this Court finds that there is no legal provision on the basis of which recovery from the family pension can be made and accordingly, without affording any opportunity of hearing or even giving a show cause notice, the respondents have proceeded to unilaterally deduct amount of Rs.8,98,002/- from the family pension of petitioner which is illegal and arbitrary and is accordingly set aside.

14. The respondents are directed to refund the amount of Rs.8,98,002/- to the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order, in case same has been deducted or any lesser amount which has been deducted from the family pension of petitioner, alongwith interest of 10% from the date of deduction till the date of payment.

15. The writ petition is allowed. Order Date :- 11.2.2025 A. Verma (Alok Mathur, J.) ANURAG VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Sri Umesh Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

2. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that husband of petitioner namely late Maqbool Ahmad was initially appointed as Assistant Engineer on 04.11.1977 and subsequently promoted to the post of Executive Engineer on 21.01.1995 and he retired from service on 30.11.2006. After his retirement Pension Payment Order (hereinafter referred to as "the PPO") was issued by the Directorate of Pension which was subsequently revised on 07.06.2018 and pension was paid to the husband of petitioner when he was alive. Husband of petitioner died on 25.04.2021 and his death was duly intimated to the Chief Treasury Officer and thereafter family pension was sanctioned and paid to the petitioner as per terms of revised PPO dated 27.09.2021.

3. It seems that certain disciplinary proceedings were pending against husband of petitioner which came to be concluded after his superannuation and in one of the disciplinary proceedings by punishment order dated 25.04.2011, deduction of 10% of pension was ordered while in the second disciplinary proceedings punishment order dated 10.07.2012 was passed whereby deduction of 15% of the pension was inflicted. Accordingly, total deduction of 25% from the pension of husband of petitioner was ordered.

4. From 2013 onwards, husband of petitioner was being paid pension after deduction of 25% of the amount which was directed to be deducted in the disciplinary proceedings. Subsequently, recommendations of 7th Pay Commission came to be accepted and implemented by the State of U.P. and hence revised PPO was issued to the petitioner in 2018. In the said PPO there was no mention of deduction of 25% of the amount which was to be recovered and accordingly husband of petitioner continued to received full pension till his death. It is when question of payment of family pension to the petitioner was considered, then it was realised that excess payment for an amount of Rs.8,98,002/- has been made in excess and it was sought to be recovered from the petitioner from the family pension.

5. In the aforesaid circumstances, present writ petition has been filed seeking direction to the respondents to refund the amount of Rs.8,98,002/- which has been deducted from the family pension of petitioner.

6. It has been next submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that payment of pension is not a bounty, but it is being paid as per rules made by the respondents. It is stated that recovery can only be made from the pension/family pension when the same is prescribed by any rule. It is stated that there is no provision for recovery of excess amount paid to the spouse of government servant which may be recovered from the family pension paid after death of government servant.

7. Learned Standing Counsel has opposed the writ petition and has submitted that in this regard specific provisions have been made in Clause 351A of the Financial Handbook which provides for recovery to be made from the pension, in case some loss is caused to the State exchequer. It is further submitted that similar rules has been framed under Clause 919A of the Financial Handbook, where recovery from pension can be made in case any loss is caused to the State exchequer.

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

9. It is noticed that there is no provision pertaining to recovery from family pension. It is submitted that in the present case there is no concealment or fraud committed by the petitioner or her husband inasmuch as from the year 2013 onwards till 2018, 25% amount was being deducted from the pension payable to the husband of petitioner.

10. It seems that when revised PPO was issued by the respondents after the recommendations of 7th Pay Commission were accepted, the aspect of deduction of 25% of pension was not included in the PPO and on account of which husband of petitioner continued to received pension without any deduction.

11. The respondents in their counter affidavit have also admitted their mistake and submitted that it was inadvertent mistake, due to which excess payment was made. The respondents have relied upon the Government Order dated 24.08.1966 for making recovery which has been imposed upon the petitioner. Despite the fact that admittedly no order has been passed by the respondents prior to making such recovery. In the said Government Order in Clause 10 it has been provided that in case Government servant or pensioner chooses a particular proposal/option pertaining to admissibility of his/her dues, and in case subsequently it is found that he is not entitled for the same, only in such circumstances, excess payment made to him/her on the basis of such option, recovery can be made.

12. Clearly, Government Order dated 24.08.1966 does not apply to the facts of the present case, inasmuch as there is no dispute with regard to the fact that recovery from the pension was being effected only on account of the punishment inflicted upon the husband of petitioner and not due to choosing of any proposal/option which was accepted by the husband of petitioner.

13. In the light of above, this Court finds that there is no legal provision on the basis of which recovery from the family pension can be made and accordingly, without affording any opportunity of hearing or even giving a show cause notice, the respondents have proceeded to unilaterally deduct amount of Rs.8,98,002/- from the family pension of petitioner which is illegal and arbitrary and is accordingly set aside.

14. The respondents are directed to refund the amount of Rs.8,98,002/- to the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order, in case same has been deducted or any lesser amount which has been deducted from the family pension of petitioner, alongwith interest of 10% from the date of deduction till the date of payment.

15. The writ petition is allowed. Order Date :- 11.2.2025 A. Verma (Alok Mathur, J.) ANURAG VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench