Recovery Of Excess Pension Payments From Retired Class-III Employee Impermissible: Patna HC

Background

Pramod Kumar Sinha worked as a Sub-Inspector in the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) before retiring. He was appointed in 2004 and was promoted to Sub-Inspector in 2008. Upon retirement, he sought his pensionary benefits. However, the CISF authorities, through a letter dated November 30, 2023, informed him that his pay fixation from 2008 was incorrect. They claimed that an excess amount of Rs. 2,13,908 had been paid to him over the years, and they decided to recover this sum from his gratuity. Aggrieved, Sinha filed a writ petition. He challenged the recovery, arguing that no show cause notice or opportunity to be heard was provided to him.

Arguments

Sinha argued that the recovery was illegal, arbitrary, and violated Article 14 of the Constitution. He submitted that he did not commit any misrepresentation or fraud, and the overpayment was solely due to the department's error. Citing State of Punjab v Rafiq Masih (2015) 4 SCC 334, he argued that recovery from retired Class-III employees is impermissible especially when such employees rely on their pensions for livelihood and committed no misrepresentation or fraud.

However, the Union argued that Sinha had signed an undertaking agreeing to recovery of any excess payments at the time of his pay revision. They cited High Court of Punjab and Haryana v. Jagdev Singh (2016) 14 SCC 267 to argue that recoveries are valid when such an undertaking is provided. The Union maintained that Sinha was bound by this agreement and that the recovery also complied with Rule 6(2) of the CISF regulations.

Court's Reasoning

Firstly, the court analysed the applicability of the Rafiq Masih principles. It noted that Rafiq Masih explicitly held that recoveries from retired Class-III and Class-IV employees are impermissible, when overpayments result from administrative errors and not employee misconduct. Since there has been no misrepresentation from Sinha, the court concluded that the recovery was unlawful.

Further, the court distinguished the facts of High Court of Punjab and Haryana Vs. Jagdev Singh (2016) 14 SCC 267. It observed that the Supreme Court in Jagdev Singh dealt with a Class-II officer who voluntarily provided an undertaking. By contrast, Sinha was a Class-III employee, and was therefore entitled to protection as per the case of Rafiq Masih.

Thus, the court concluded that no recovery can be made from a Class-III employee in the absence of misrepresentation, especially when the incorrect fixation was the Department's fault. Consequently, the court allowed the writ petition and quashed the recovery orders. It directed the Union to restore Sinha's pension and gratuity without any deductions.

Decided on: 20-12-2024

Case No.: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11407 of 2024| Pramod Kumar Sinha v. Union of India

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Gajendra Pratap Singh

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. (Dr.) Krishna Nandan Singh, Mrs. Punam Kumari Singh, and Mr. Amarjeet