- (1.) Petitioners have filed the petition challenging the order dated 17.09.2019 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that respondent no.1 was working with the petitioners and retired from service on 31.08.1990. On 27.01.2010 pension of the respondent no.1 was refixed from Rs.6,546/- per month to Rs.5,581/- per month. On the basis of the same, recovery was effected by the Bank vis ?-vis excess payment made to respondent no.1. Learned Tribunal has erred in allowing the application moved by the respondent no.1 challenging the recovery of excess payment made to him. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in High Court of Punjab & Haryana & Ors. Vs. Jagdev Singh (2016) 14 Supreme Court Cases 267, wherein, it was held as under:- "9. The submission of the Respondent, which found favour with the High Court, was that a payment which has been made in excess cannot be recovered from an employee who has retired from the service of the state. This, in our view, will have no application to a situation such as the present where an undertaking was specifically furnished by the officer at the time when his pay was initially revised accepting that any payment found to have been made in excess would be liable to be adjusted. While opting for the benefit of the revised pay scale, the Respondent was clearly on notice of the fact that a future re-fixation or revision may warrant an adjustment of the excess payment, if any, made. 10. In State of Punjab and Ors etc. vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc1. this Court held that while it is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship where payments have mistakenly been made by an employer, in the following situations, a recovery by the employer would be impermissible in law: "(i) Recovery from employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV service (or Group 'C' and Group 'D' service). (ii) Recovery from retired employees, or employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery. (iii) Recovery from employees, when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery is issued. (iv) Recovery in cases where an employee has wrongfully been required to discharge duties of a paid accordingly, even though he should have rightfully been required to work against an inferior post. (v) In any other case, where the Court arrives at the conclusion, that recovery if made from the employee, would be iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary to such an extent, as would far outweigh the equitable balance of the employer's right to recover." (emphasis supplied). 11. The principle enunciated in proposition (ii) above cannot apply to a situation such as in the present case. In the present case, the officer to whom the 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. 12. For these reasons, the judgment of the High Court which set aside the action for recovery is unsustainable. However, we are of the view that the recovery should be made in reasonable instalments. We direct that the recovery be made in equated monthly instalments spread over a period of two years."
(3.) Learned counsel for respondent no.1 has opposed the petition and has submitted that while revising the pension of the respondent no.1, no notice was issued to him. Although, respondent no.1 had not challenged the said order, but recovery of the excess payment made to the respondent no.1 could not be effected from him as respondent no.1 had never made any misstatement before the Authorities. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) & Ors. (2015) 4 Supreme Court Cases 334.;