Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Vishwanath Singh vs North Central Railway on 19 March, 2025
(Reserved )
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ALLAHABAD BENCH,
ALLAHABAD
Pronounced on 19th day of March, 2025
Original Application No. 641 of 2024
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member(Judicial)
Vishwanath Singh, aged about 68 years (Senior Citizen), S/o late
Chhedi Lal (Retd. Loco Pilot/Mail), Resident of 15, Jeewanpura, Prem
Nagar, Nagra, District Jhansi 284003.
. . .Applicant
By Advocate : Shri Rajesh Kumar
VERSUS
1. Union of India through General Manager, North Central Railway,
Prayagraj
PUNIT KUMAR
2. Divisional Railway Manager, North Central Railway, Jhansi
MISHRA
3. Senior Manager, Punjab National Bank, Central Pension
Processing Centre (CPPC), Draupadi Ghat, CDA, P, Prayagraj
4. Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank, Prem Nagar, Nagra,
Jhansi, UP
. . .Respondents
By Advocate : Shri Krishna Kumar Ojha,
Shri Jainendra Kumar Mishra
ORDER
Heard Shri Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Krishna Kumar Ojha, learned counsel for the official respondent as well as Shri Jainendra Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent-Bank at the time of hearing of case.
2. The instant Original Application under Section 19 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 has been filed for the following relief:-
8 (i) To quash the impugned order dated 22.05.2024 passed by respondent-4.
(ii) To direct the respondents not to initiate any recovery and pay pension to the applicant as per his entitlement. The respondents may also be directed to operate the pension account of the applicant so that the applicant will be able to withdraw money for expenses of him and his family.
(iii) Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the cases may be given in favour of the applicant.
3. The facts leading to this Original Application as apparent from the record is that the applicant was initially appointed to the post of Assistant Loco Pilot on 18.12.1979 and was retired from services on 30.09.2016 from the post of Loco Pilot Mail after attaining the age of superannuation. After retirement, the respondents issued Pension Payment Order (hereinafter referred as „PPO‟) and the applicant has PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA regularly been paid pension till April, 2024 without any interruption. Suddenly, in the month of May, 2024, when pension of the applicant was not credited in his account, the applicant personally met with the Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank, Prem Nagar (Nagra) Branch, Jhansi (respondent-4) on 01.06.2024 and requested for payment of pension and also allow the applicant to withdraw his money, which was illegally freezed/seized by the Bank without any basis or giving any opportunity of hearing.
3.1 Accordingly, the respondents provided the copy of order dated 22.05.2024 to the applicant on 01.06.2024, whereby it is informed to the applicant that as per communication received from the Central Pension Processing Centre, Prayagraj, extra payment of Rs.62,12,471/- has been credited to applicant‟s pension account and directed to refund the same as earliest, so that the same may be returned to the concerned division.
Page 2 of 13 3.2 Aggrieved by the same, the applicant represented before the respondents on 03.06.2024 and requested to start pension and also to open the seized account of the applicant so that he would be able to arrange means of livelihood, but no heed was paid. Hence, this Original Application has been filed, challenging the order dated 22.05.2024.
4. On the other hand, counter affidavit has been filed from the side of the official respondents on 23.08.2024, wherein it has been stated that after retirement, the PPO was issued in favour of the applicant by fixing the amount of pension on 26.09.2016 and was also sent to the concerned Bank for its payment to the applicant. No any order has been passed by the official respondents for deduction from the pension of the applicant.
PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA
5. A counter affidavit has also been filed from the side of the respondent-Bank on 07.10.2024, wherein it has been stated that the applicant retired from the post of Assistant Loco Pilot under the North Central Railway, Jhansi Division on 30.09.2016 at that time as per the 7th Central Pay Commission his basic salary Pay was Rs. 72,100/; on that basis, his basic pension has been calculated as Rs. 55,878.00; which was also mentioned in PPO. Thereafter as per rules, the commuted amount Rs. 22351.00 should be deducted in every month from his pension, therefore the applicant only liable to receive the amount of Rs. 33527.00 every month after deduction of the commuted amount in terms of PPO dated 26.09.2016.
5.1 The basic pension of the applicant was calculated as per the 7th Central Pay Commission, but due to a mistake, the respondent bank calculated the DA. @ of 164% in place of 50% upon the basic pension of the applicant as per the 6th Central Pay Commission due to that reason, the applicant received more amount from his last basic pay, Page 3 of 13 which is shown from the statement of account of the applicant from 01.10.2016 to 26.07.2024.
5.2 Due to some mistake from 2016 to April 2024, the applicant received more amount as Rs. 62,12,471/- but he was never informed to the respondent authority.
5.3 As per the audit report dated 24.05.2024, the railways authorities found that the applicant received more amount as D.A. @ of 164% in place of 50% upon the basic pension of the applicant under 6th Central Pay Commission and as such, the Railways informed the bank and also directed to recover the excess amount paid to the applicant vide letter dated 27.05.2024, which was already paid to the applicant as PUNIT KUMAR well as other pensioners.
MISHRA 5.4 As per the direction of the railway department, the respondent bank calculated the actual pension of the applicant and found that the applicant received the total amount of Rs. 1,03,70,980/- in place of Rs. 41,58,509/-; therefore as per bank guidelines and as per undertaking submitted on 22.11.2016 by the applicant, the respondent bank issued the letter dated 22.05.2024 to the applicant, there was no illegality, in the eye of the law, therefore the present O.A. filed by the applicant on the basis of false facts, is liable to be dismissed with a heavy cost.
6. Rejoinder affidavit has been filed from the side of the applicant on 17.09.2024, wherein the applicant reiterated the same averment as has been made in Original Application. However, it is submitted that the respondents have itself admitted the fact that due to their own mistake, applicant received more amount. The undertaking given by the employee at the time of grant of financial benefits on Page 4 of 13 account of re-fixation of pay is a forced undertaking, which not enforceable.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that assailed the impugned order/letter on the ground that while recovering a sum of Rs.62,12,471/- after retirement, the respondents have not followed the cardinal principles of natural justice. The respondents have themselves admitted that due to their mistake, the applicant received more amount and as such, no recovery can be made from a retired employee that too without affording opportunity or hearing as per law laid down by the Apex Court.
7.1 Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that PUNIT KUMAR there is no misrepresentation or fraud on behalf of the applicant. MISHRA Admittedly, it was a bonafide mistake of respondents, the excess payment was made due to wrong calculation of respondents, for which the applicant cannot be held responsible.
7.2 It is settled law that the respondents have no Authority to recover / deduction of over payment of pay after retirement. The undertaking given by the employee at the time of grant of financial benefits on account of re-fixation of pay is forced one. 7.3 Learned counsel for the applicant places heavy reliance on the following judgments:-
a) State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masiah1
b) The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Jagdish Prasad Dubey and other analogous cases.2
8. Shri Krishna kumar Ojha, learned counsel for the respondents fairly submitted that no any order has been passed by the 1 (2015) 4 SCC 334 2 Writ Appeal No.815/2017 and Other analogous cases Page 5 of 13 official respondents for deduction from the pension of the applicant and as such, there is no responsibility upon the official respondent and it is bank, who issued recovery order.
9. Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank vehemently opposed the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant and submitted that due to some mistake, the DA was calculated @ of 164% in place of 50% upon the basic pension of the applicant and as such, the applicant was given total amount from 2016 to April 2024 as Rs. 1,03,70,980/ in place of Rs. 41,58,509/; during that period, the applicant received the excess amount as Rs. 62,12,471/; which is recoverable.
10. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA as per PPO, the last payment of applicant was Rs.72,100/- and on that basis, the basic pension of the applicant has been fixed as Rs.55,878/-, but as per the account statement, the applicant received monthly pension as above Rs.1,10,000/- per month due to mistake of the bank and not by his employer.
11. Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank further submitted that as per PPO, the applicant has full information about the actual basic pension that has been fixed by the Railway Authority, but the applicant continuously received the excess amount by mistake and was deliberately and intentionally never informed the Bank regarding the excess payment. After knowledge, the respondent-Bank issued impugned letter to the applicant for payment of such excess amount. 11.1 Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank further submitted that the applicant already submitted a letter of undertaking before the respondent bank, by which, the applicant undertake and authorized to Page 6 of 13 recover the such amount, credited in his account for which, he was not entitled.
12. I have considered the submissions so raised by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
13. Now, the question for adjudication before this Court is as to whether at this belated stage, the Respondent Bank is empowered to recover the excess amount from the pension of the applicant, which is said to have been paid in excess to his entitlement.
14. This is a case where overpayment of pension paid due to erroneous calculation/payment of pension on the part of Pension Disbursing Authority i.e. Punjab National Bank itself and in case of PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA overpayment erroneously made by the Pension Disbursing Authority, they are required to follow the Instruction of the Reserve Bank of India as all the Banks, save and except the State Bank of Sikkim, are regulated by Reserve Bank of India.
15. One thing, it is admitted that the role of the respondent Bank is only limited to the extent of drawing and disbursing authority, who ensure payment of pension on the basis of PPO by the concerned Department/institution/authority under which the employees had rendered their services. Thus, there is no relationship of the employer and employee between the Bank and the pensioner. That apart, the function of the Bank is being regulated by the master circular/Instruction(s) issued from time to time by the higher authorities of the Bank empowering the Bank to recover the excess amount, which is paid on account of mistake or miscalculation, after giving proper demand notice.
Page 7 of 13
16. After careful examination of the judgments rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Sahib Ram v. The State of Haryana [1995 Supp (1) SCC 18]; Syed Abdul Kadir v. The State of Bihar [(2009) 3 SCC 475], Rafiq Masih (supra) as also the Thomas Daniel v. State of Kerala [2022 SCC OnLine SC 536]), it goes without saying that the mandate of the Supreme Court not to recover the excess amount is based upon equity, in case the excess payment was not made on account of misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee or made by the employer by applying a wrong principle for calculating the pay/allowance or on the basis of a particular interpretation of rule/order, which is subsequently found to be erroneous or where court arrives at the conclusion that the recovery if made from the employee would be PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary to such an extent, as would far outweigh the equitable balance of the employer's right to recover.
17. Taking note of the aforenoted settled proposition of law, this Court feels it apt and proper to quote paragraph nos. 13 and 14 of the judgment rendered in the case of Chandi Prasad Uniyal and Ors vs. State of Uttarakhand and Ors., reported in (2012) 8 SCC 417 where the Apex Court has observed as follows:
"13. We are not convinced that this Court in various judgments referred to hereinbefore has laid down any proposition of law that only if the State or its officials establish that there was misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the recipients of the excess pay, then only the amount paid could be recovered. On the other hand, most of the cases referred to hereinbefore turned on the peculiar facts and circumstances of those cases either because the recipients had retired or were on the verge of retirement or were occupying lower posts in the administrative hierarchy.
14. We are concerned with the excess payment of public money which is often described as "taxpayers' money"
which belongs neither to the officers who have effected overpayment nor to the recipients. We fail to see why the Page 8 of 13 concept of fraud or misrepresentation is being brought in in such situations. The question to be asked is whether excess money has been paid or not, may be due to a bona fide mistake. Possibly, effecting excess payment of public money by the government officers may be due to various reasons like negligence, carelessness, collusion, favouritism, etc., because money in such situation does not belong to the payer or the payee. Situations may also arise where both the payer and the payee are at fault, then the mistake is mutual. Payments are being effected in many situations without any authority of law and payments have been received by the recipients also without any authority of law. Any amount paid/received without the authority of law can always be recovered barring few exceptions of extreme hardships but not as a matter of right, in such situations law implies an obligation on the payee to repay the money, otherwise it would amount to unjust enrichment."
18. Further in the case in hand before making payment of pension, the applicant had already furnished undertaking that he would PUNIT KUMAR refund the excess amount paid and thus he is bound by the undertaking. MISHRA The aforesaid proposition has well explained and propounded by Bench of the Supreme Court, consisting of three judges in the case of High Court of Punjab & Haryana Vs. Jagdeo Singh, reported in 2016 (14) SCC 267 wherein the Apex Court taking note of the earlier judgment rendered in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra) has held as under:-
"In case where officers to whom payment was made in the first instance was clearly placed on notice that any payment found to have been made in excess would be required to be refunded, the officer furnished an undertaking while opting for the revised pay scale, he is bound by the undertaking."
19. This Court after having gone through the Instruction/Guideline issued by the Reserve Bank of India, which is obligated to be followed by the Pension Disbursing Authority/Banks, is of the opinion that the pension is paid to the applicant by the Bank under the scheme for payment of pension by Public Sector Banks; on being acceded, at the request of the pensioner to credit to saving/current Page 9 of 13 account in single name of the pensioner payable to him from time to time. As it falls due for the said purpose, the pensioner executes an undertaking to refund or make good to the Bank any amount to which the pensioner is not entitled or any excess amount which may be credited to the account over that to which the pensioner would be entitled and agrees that the amount, when demanded by the Bank and as due and payable to the Bank shall be conclusive and binding on the pensioners. The pensioners also bind themselves and their legal heirs and agreed to undertake to indemnify the Bank from and against any loss, damage and expenses suffered or incurred by the Bank in so crediting the pension to the account of the pensioner under the scheme and to forthwith pay the same to the Bank and authorized the Bank to PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA recover the amount in respect thereof by debit to the account or any other deposit belonging to the hands of the Bank.
20. It would be apposite to quote the relevant Instruction/Master Circular of the Reserve Bank of India dated 01.07.2015, which deals with the recovery of excess/wrong payment made to the pensioner.
"...11. Details of the uniform procedure evolved for recovery of excess/wrong payments made to pensioners drawing pensions under the Scheme for payment of pension to Central/Civil/Defence/Railways pensioners through public sector banks, are given below:
i. As soon as the excess/wrong payment made to a pensioner comes to the notice of paying branch, the branch should adjust the same against the amount standing to the credit to the pensioner's account to the extent possible including lump sum arrears payment. ii. If the entire amount of overpayment cannot be adjusted from the account, the pensioner may be asked to pay forthwith the balance amount of overpayment. iii. In case the pensioner expresses his inability to pay the amount, the same may be adjusted from the future pension payments to be made to the pensioners. For recovering the overpayment made to the pensioner from his future pension payment In installments 1/3rd of Page 10 of 13 net (pension + relief) payable each month may be recovered unless the pensioner concerned gives consent in writing to pay a higher installment amount. iv. If the overpayment cannot be recovered from the pensioner due to his death or discontinuance of pension then action has to be taken as per the letter of undertaking given by the pensioner under the scheme. v. The pensioner may also be advised about the details of over payment/wrong payment and mode of its recovery..."
21. It is further observed that the Master Circular also crystallized that whenever any excess/overpayment is detected, the entire amount thereof should be credited to the government account in lump sum immediately as soon the excess/over payment is due to an error on the part of the Agency Bank. If the excess payment to the Bank due to errors committed by the Government, Banks may take up the PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA matter with full particulars of the cases with respective Government Departments for a quick resolution of the matter.
22. The issue with respect to recovery of excess amount has also been brought to the knowledge of the respondent-Bank by official respondents after inspection dated 24.05.2024 due to overpayment in DA @ 164 % instead of 50 % for PPO issued in 7 th Pay Commission and the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent bank, suggests the applicant submitted a letter of undertaking for recovery on 22.11.2016 and as such, impugned order of recovery is in accordance with the Instruction of the Reserve Bank of India as also in the light of the mandate of the Apex Court in the case of Jagdev Singh (supra).
23. So far the contention of the applicant that he has been getting enhanced pension, soon after retirement i.e. 2016 and now at this belated stage, after 08 years any alleged excess amount ought not be recovered, does not find force as the payment of excess pension is a Page 11 of 13 recurring/successive wrong, which gives rise to a distinct and separate cause of action and the wrong or illegality cannot get sanctity or legalized by mere passage of time.
24. This Court is also not oblivious of the fact that the applicant has been getting enhanced pension since long and at this stage, any deduction from the pension would certainly cause hardship but at the same time this fact could not be ignored that the excess payment paid to the applicant is a public money, which belongs neither to the officers, who effected overpayment nor to the recipient. Moreover, the applicant and the Bank do not fall within the definition of employer and employee, rather the Bank was in the role of Pension Disbursing Authority and the pension was being paid pursuant to the Pension PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA Payment Order issued by the Government of India. Thus being an Agency, it is bound by its Circular and the Instruction issued by the Reserve Bank of India, which has never been questioned.
25. Further, the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant is no help to him. This Court fails to understand that as to why the applicant did not inform the Bank about the excess payment as in the PPO itself, it was mentioned that his basic pension is Rs.55,878/- and after pension commuted, his reduced pension is Rs.33,527/- per month and he was continuously receiving pension more than Rs.1,10,000/- per month, which is even more than his last basic pay i.e. Rs.72,100/-, meaning thereby, the applicant is well aware with the fact that he is getting excess amount in comparison to his pension amount even then, he kept mum for the last eight years.
26. In view of the afore-noted discussions, this Court does not find any merit in the Original Application and the same stands dismissed with the liberty to the applicant that in case the applicant is Page 12 of 13 not satisfied with the calculation made by the Bank authorities and/or re- fixation for easy monthly installment, he may file an appropriate application before the respondent-4, who shall look into the matter sympathetically.
27. No order as to costs.
28. All MAs pending in this O.A. also stand disposed off.
(Justice Rajiv Joshi) Member(J.) PM/ PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA Page 13 of 13