Central Administrative Tribunal - Jammu
Mrs Rattani Chowdhary vs Health And Medical Education ... on 26 March, 2026
:: 1 :: TA 655/2022
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JAMMU BENCH, JAMMU (RESERVED)
Hearing through video conferencing
Transfer Application No. 655/2022
Reserved on: - 11.07.2025
Pronounced on: - 26.03.2026
HON'BLE MR. RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MR. RAM MOHAN JOHRI, MEMBER (A)
Mrs. Rattani Chowdhary, Age 73 years, W/O Late Mr. Chaman Lal
Chowdhary, R/O H. No. 89, Sector No. 4, Pamposh Colony, Janipur,
Jammu, (J &K)- 180007.
...Applicant
(Advocate: - Mr. Ashok Kumar Basotra)
Versus
1. State of Jammu & Kashmir, Through Commissioner / Secretary,
Public Works Department (PWD), Civil Secretariat, Srinagar, J&K.
2. The Commissioner / Secretary, Health & Medical Education
Department, Civil Secretariat, Srinagar, J&K
3. The Superintending Engineer, National Highway One B (N. H. I. B.)
Circle, Batote, District Doda, J&K.
4. The Medical Superintendent, Government Medical College Hospital,
Jammu, J&K.
5. The Accountant General (A & E), Jammu & Kashmir,
Jammu/Srinagar.
Digitally signed by
HARSHIT YADAV
HARSHIT YADAV
:: 2 :: TA 655/2022
6. The Treasury Additional Treasury, New Plot, Jammu, J&K
....Respondents
(Advocate:- Mr. Sudesh Magotra, AAG, Mr. Akshay Sadotra)
Digitally signed by
HARSHIT YADAV
HARSHIT YADAV
:: 3 :: TA 655/2022
ORDER
PER: - MR. RAM MOHAN JOHRI, MEMBER (A)
1. The SWP No.1596/2017 was transferred from the Hon'ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir at Jammu and was registered as T.A No.655/2022 by the Registry of this Tribunal.
2. The present matter was filed before the Hon'ble High Court seeking following relief: -
a) Appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of Certiorari for quashing the communication impugned dated 25.05.2017 to the extent of recovery of the amount of Rs.
4,86,762/- ( Rs. Four lakh Eighty Six Thousand Seven Hundred and Sixty Two Only), as the same is unfair, illegal, arbitrary, unjust, improper and unconstitutional.
b) Further, writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to produce the formal order, if any, and the record pertaining to the communication impugned dated 25-05-2017.
c) Further, writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to release both the pensions, family pension vide Pension Payment Order (PPO) No. 115325 as well as self pension vide Pension Payment Order (PPO) No. 115325, in favour of the petitioner herein under rules.
d) Such orders additional or alternative relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of Digitally signed by HARSHIT YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 4 :: TA 655/2022 the case may also be granted in favour of the petitioner herein and against the respondents."
3. The facts of the case as pleaded by the petitioner in her pleadings are as follows: -
a) The present Transfer Application arises out of SWP No. 1596/2017 which was initially filed before the Hon'ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and subsequently transferred to this Tribunal. The applicant, a widow aged about 73 years, seeks quashing of communication dated 25.05.2017 whereby recovery of an amount initially quantified at ₹4,86,762/- was sought to be effected on the ground of alleged excess drawal of Dearness Allowance and Medical Allowance on both family pension and self-pension. She has further prayed for release of both pensions in her favour.
b) The applicant's husband, who was working as Head Assistant in the Public Works Department (PWD), National Highway NH-1B Circle, Batote, District Doda, died in harness on 14.10.1982. After his demise, the applicant became entitled to and has been receiving family pension with effect from 15.10.1982 under PPO No. 005467-F. The family pension was Digitally signed by HARSHIT YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 5 :: TA 655/2022 revised from time to time by the office of the Accountant General (A&E), Jammu and Kashmir, through communications issued in the years 1999, 2001 and 2010. The applicant continued to draw family pension regularly through J&K Bank, Branch Chowk Chabutra, Jammu.
c) Apart from being a family pensioner, the applicant was herself employed as Auxiliary Nurse Midwife (ANM) in Government Medical College Hospital, Jammu and retired from service on 31.05.2002. Upon retirement, she became entitled to self- pension with effect from 01.06.2002 under PPO No. 115325, which she was drawing through J&K Bank, Branch Janipur, Jammu. Both pensions were allegedly drawn without interruption until April 2017.
d) In May 2017, the applicant claims that both pensions were suddenly stopped. Upon enquiry from the concerned bank authorities, she was informed that recovery proceedings had been initiated pursuant to a communication issued by the Treasury Officer, Additional Treasury, New Plot, Jammu, alleging that the applicant had drawn Dearness Allowance and Digitally signed by HARSHIT YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 6 :: TA 655/2022 Medical Allowance on both family pension and self-pension, which according to the respondents was not permissible under the relevant provisions of the J&K Civil Service Regulations. The applicant asserts that no formal order of recovery or stoppage of pension was supplied to her despite repeated requests, and that she was merely handed over a copy of the impugned communication dated 25.05.2017.
e) The applicant contends that she never misrepresented any facts nor obtained any financial benefit by fraud or concealment, and that any alleged excess payment was solely due to departmental lapses. She further pleads that recovery at such an advanced age, particularly in view of her medical condition including treatment for breast cancer, would be harsh, arbitrary and inequitable. She also emphasizes that she has been drawing family pension for more than three decades and self-pension for over fifteen years without any objection from the authorities, and therefore recovery at this belated stage is unjustified. Digitally signed by HARSHIT YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 7 :: TA 655/2022
4. The respondents have filed their reply statement wherein they have averred as follows:
a) The respondents have contested the claim of the applicant and have raised preliminary objections regarding maintainability, locus standi and alleged suppression of material facts. It is contended that the application does not disclose violation of any statutory or legal right and therefore deserves dismissal.
b) On merits, the respondents admit that the applicant has been receiving family pension since 15.10.1982 and that the same was revised from time to time by the competent authority. It is also acknowledged that the applicant retired from Government service on 31.05.2002 and became entitled to self-pension thereafter. However, it is specifically pleaded that the disbursement of the two pensions was being processed through different treasuries and bank branches, and that the applicant did not process her self-pension case through the New Plot Treasury. Consequently, the irregularity regarding drawal of Dearness Allowance and Medical Allowance on both pensions could not be detected earlier.
Digitally signed by
HARSHIT YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 8 :: TA 655/2022
c) The respondents assert that in terms of Government Instructions below Note-5 to Clause (c) of Rule 24 of Schedule XV of the J&K Civil Service Regulations, a pensioner receiving both service pension and family pension is entitled to Dearness Allowance only on one of the pensions, preferably the one carrying higher Dearness Allowance. It is therefore alleged that the applicant received excess monetary benefits contrary to the applicable rules, thereby causing loss to the State exchequer. On this basis, recovery proceedings were initiated through communication addressed to the concerned bank branch.
d) It is further submitted that upon subsequent scrutiny, the amount of recovery was recalculated and reduced from ₹4,86,762/- to ₹3,68,555/- after taking into account the applicant's entitlement to higher Dearness Allowance from the date of her retirement. The respondents maintain that the recovery has been formulated strictly in accordance with rules and that ignorance of law cannot be pleaded as a defence. They also deny that any formal order was passed directing stoppage of pension, stating that only recovery of excess amount was Digitally signed by HARSHIT YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 9 :: TA 655/2022 sought while ensuring continuation of pension to the extent permissible.
e) The respondents therefore contend that the applicant has been unjustly enriched by drawing inadmissible allowances and that the burden to refund such excess payment lawfully lies upon her.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
6. The present Transfer Application arises out of SWP No. 1596/2017 which stood transferred from the Hon'ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir to this Tribunal for adjudication. The applicant, a widow and senior citizen, has challenged communication dated 25.05.2017 whereby recovery of an amount on account of alleged excess drawal of Dearness Allowance and Medical Allowance on both family pension and self-pension was sought to be effected, and her pensions were also withheld. She seeks quashing of the said communication and release of both pensions in accordance with rules.
7. The husband of the applicant was working as Head Assistant in the Public Works Department, NH-1B Circle, Batote and died in harness Digitally signed by HARSHIT YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 10 :: TA 655/2022 on 14.10.1982. The applicant thereafter became entitled to family pension with effect from 15.10.1982 under the relevant Pension Payment Order and continued to receive the same. The family pension was revised from time to time by the office of the Accountant General.
8. The applicant herself was working as Auxiliary Nurse Midwife in Government Medical College Hospital, Jammu and retired from service on 31.05.2002. Upon retirement, she became entitled to self- pension with effect from 01.06.2002 and started drawing the same through a different bank branch. Thus, the applicant was receiving both family pension and self-pension for a long period, allegedly along with Dearness Allowance and Medical Allowance.
9. In May 2017, the applicant's pensions were suddenly stopped on the basis of communication issued by the Treasury authorities alleging that she had been drawing Dearness Allowance and Medical Allowance on both pensions in violation of the provisions of the J&K Civil Service Regulations. Recovery of an amount initially quantified at ₹4,86,762/-, later revised to ₹3,68,555/-, was proposed. The applicant contends that she never misrepresented any fact, that the Digitally signed by HARSHIT YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 11 :: TA 655/2022 payments were made by the department itself, and that recovery after decades of pensionary benefits is harsh, illegal and arbitrary.
10. The respondents have contested the claim of the applicant on the ground that she had been drawing Dearness Allowance and Medical Allowance on both pensions which was not permissible under Government Instructions below Note-5 to Clause (c) of Rule 24 of Schedule XV of the J&K Civil Service Regulations. It is stated that since the two pensions were processed through different treasuries, the irregularity could not be detected earlier.
11. It is further contended that the applicant has received excess payment which resulted in loss to the State exchequer and therefore recovery has been rightly initiated in accordance with rules. The respondents maintain that the applicant was aware of the rules and cannot plead ignorance. It is also submitted that the amount of recovery was subsequently recalculated and reduced after scrutiny. According to the respondents, pension was not permanently stopped but recovery was sought to be effected while regulating future pension in accordance with rules.
Digitally signed by HARSHIT YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 12 :: TA 655/2022
12. It is not in dispute that the applicant has been receiving family pension since 1982 and self-pension since 2002. It is also not disputed that both pensions were sanctioned and disbursed by the competent authorities and that the alleged excess payment was not the result of any fraud, misrepresentation or concealment on the part of the applicant.
13. The law relating to recovery of excess payment from pensioners is now well settled. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), (2015) 4 SCC 334 has clearly held that recovery from retired employees or employees nearing retirement, particularly when the excess payment is not attributable to any fault of the employee, would be impermissible in law as it would be harsh and inequitable. Similar principles have been reiterated in Thomas Daniel vs. State of Kerala, (2022) 5 SCC 545, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that recovery after long lapse of time from a retired employee is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
14. In the present case, the applicant is a senior citizen who has been drawing pensionary benefits for decades. The alleged irregularity pertains to interpretation and application of rules by the authorities Digitally signed by HARSHIT YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 13 :: TA 655/2022 themselves. There is nothing on record to show that the applicant had played any role in sanction or calculation of Dearness Allowance or Medical Allowance. The respondents, being custodians of public funds, were under obligation to verify admissibility of allowances at the time of sanction and disbursement of pension. Failure on their part cannot now be shifted upon the applicant after an inordinate delay.
15. At the same time, the rules governing grant of Dearness Allowance on family pension and service pension cannot be ignored. The respondents are entitled to regulate and refix pension prospectively in accordance with applicable rules so as to prevent recurrence of any irregular payment.
16. Thus, while recovery of the alleged excess amount already paid to the applicant cannot be sustained in law, refixation of pension for future in accordance with statutory provisions is permissible.
17. In view of the foregoing discussion and settled legal position, the impugned communication dated 25.05.2017 to the extent it directs recovery of the alleged excess payment from the applicant is quashed and set aside.
Digitally signed by HARSHIT YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 14 :: TA 655/2022
18. The respondents are directed to restore and release both family pension and self-pension of the applicant forthwith along with arrears, if any, within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
19. However, it is made clear that the respondents shall be at liberty to refix and regulate the pensionary benefits of the applicant prospectively in accordance with the relevant provisions of the J&K Civil Service Regulations, after due notice to the applicant.
20. The Transfer Application is accordingly allowed in the above terms.
No order as to costs.
(RAM MOHAN JOHRI) (RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA)
Administrative Member Judicial Member
/harshit/
Digitally signed by
HARSHIT YADAV
HARSHIT YADAV