Not A Mere Breach Of Contract: Telangana High Court Refuses To Quash FIR In ₹73 Crore Garment Investment Fraud Accused Not Entitled To Copies Of 'Unrelied' Upon Documents At The Stage Of Framing Of Charges Under Section 91 CrPC: Supreme Court Elected Representatives Have No Privilege To Resort To Violence; Criminal Antecedents Are Material For Bail Adjudication: Supreme Court Mere Absence Of Transport Documents Does Not Create A Presumption Of Violation Of Chhattisgarh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 2004: Supreme Court Section 396 IPC | Conviction For 'Dacoity With Murder' Requires Proof That Murder Was Committed In The Course Of Dacoity: Allahabad High Court 'Developers Cannot Delay Conveyance For Eternity And Milk Additional FSI Benefits': Bombay High Court Upholds Societies' Deemed Conveyance Pre-Approval Statutory Dues Stand Extinguished Upon Approval Of Resolution Plan; GST Authorities Cannot Initiate Fresh Proceedings: Calcutta High Court Unregistered Agreement To Sell With Delivery Of Possession Is Admissible In A Suit For Specific Performance: Delhi High Court Stigmatic Order Discharging Probationer Without Inquiry Is Void For Violation Of Natural Justice: Gujarat High Court Execution Proceedings | Court Cannot Impose Arbitrary Financial Conditions Without Reason In Stay Applications: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 528 BNSS | High Court Cannot Exercise Inherent Powers To Circumvent Statutory Bar Against Second Revision: Delhi High Court Advocate Empanelment | Restriction On Multiple Applications Is A Procedural Choice Within Employer’s Domain: Delhi High Court Acquittal Appeal | Double Presumption Of Innocence In Favour Of Accused Cannot Be Disturbed Merely Because Another View Is Possible: Gujarat High Court SC/ST Act | Offence Under Section 3(1)(g) Not Attracted If Dispossession Or Interference Is Not Due To Victim's Caste: Himachal Pradesh High Court Judicial Officer Must Maintain Distance From Practicing Advocates To Avoid Impropriety: Gujarat High Court Upholds Dismissal Section 183 BNSS | Investigating Officer Cannot Independently Record Further Statement Of Victim After Recording Before Magistrate: Karnataka High Court Non-Production Of Case Property And Missing Link Evidence In Seizure Cases Vitiates Prosecution: Himachal Pradesh High Court Employees Compensation Act | Death Due To Cardiac Arrest During Employment Is An 'Accident' Arising Out Of Stress And Strain Of Duty: J&K High Court Transfer Of Proceedings | Courts Must Issue Fresh Notice To Parties Even If They Had Appeared Before The Transferor Court: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Ex-Parte Award Section 80P(4) IT Act Does Not Deny Deduction To Regional Rural Banks As They Retain The 'Deemed Co-operative Society' Status Under Section 22 RRB Act: Madras High Court Property Purchased In Name Of Child For Family Benefit Is Not A 'Benami Transaction' Under Section 2(9) Of The 1988 Act: Madhya Pradesh High Court Person Without Caveatable Interest Cannot Challenge Will Or Seek Revocation Of Probate: Madras High Court Divorce | Cruelty Must Be Assessed By Cumulative Effect Of Matrimonial Conduct Rather Than Isolated Incidents: Orissa High Court Merely Labeling Insurance Policy As Comprehensive Does Not Create Unlimited Liability: MP High Court Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Must Be Rejected If Limitation Bar Is Apparent From Face Of Pleadings: Patna High Court Limitation Act | 'Sufficient Cause' Cannot Be Used To Revive Stale Or Dead Claims By State: Orissa High Court Quashes Order Condoning 53-Year Delay Employee Cannot Remain Dormant Like Rip Van Winkle & Awaken At Convenience: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Stale Service Plea With ₹25K Cost Section 29 NDPS Act | Mere Allegation Of 'Cooperation' Without Specific Overt Acts Cannot Sustain Charge Of Conspiracy: Rajasthan High Court Forest Land Status Does Not Extinguish Private Civil Title: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Decree For Possession Once Admitted In Evidence, Document Cannot Be De-Marked On Grounds Of Insufficiency Of Stamp Duty: Telangana High Court Section 190 BNSS | Mere Presence In Unlawful Assembly With Active Intent Renders Member Vicariously Liable For Homicidal Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Contributory Negligence Under Motor Vehicles Act Cannot Be Inferred Without Cogent Evidence: Telangana High Court Enhances Compensation Motor Vehicles Act | Section 164 Compensation Of Rs. 5 Lakhs Applicable Even To Pending Claims Arising Prior To 2019 Amendment: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consumer Protection Act | Builder Liable To Pay Interest For Delayed Possession Despite Force Majeure Plea If Agreement Executed Post-Outbreak: State Commission

Quashes Recovery of Excess Pension and Impose Cost on Central Government – PH HC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh delivered a judgment on May 5, 2023, quashing the recovery of excess pension from a retired army personnel. The case, bearing the number CWP-20457-2019 (O&M), involved petitioner Kashmir Singh versus Union of India and others.

The bench comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri presided over the case and heard arguments from Mr. Sumit Dua, the advocate representing the petitioner, and Ms. Sonia Sharma and Mr. Naren Partap Singh, advocates appearing for respondents No. 1 and 2 and respondent No. 3 respectively.

The petitioner, who had served in the Indian Army as a Sepoy and retired in 1974, had been receiving a regular pension since April 1, 1979. However, in May 2019, the petitioner's pension was substantially reduced and recovery of the excess amount was sought to be made at a rate of Rs. 3500 per month. The petitioner contended that the reduction and recovery were effected without providing him an opportunity of hearing or a show-cause notice, and were in violation of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc., 2015(4) SC 334.

During the proceedings, the petitioner's counsel argued that the recovery part was being challenged, and not the re-fixation of the pension. They emphasized that the recovery, after 50 years of the petitioner's retirement, went against the principles established in the aforementioned Supreme Court judgment.

The respondents, represented by their respective advocates, submitted that the petitioner's pension was erroneously fixed as a service pensioner instead of a reservist pensioner due to a mistake in the computer system. They acknowledged the mistake and stated that the recovery was justified based on the detection of overpayment to the petitioner.

After considering the arguments, the bench opined that the recovery from the petitioner fell under Category-(i) and (ii) as outlined in the Supreme Court judgment. The court held that recovery from Category-C and D employees, as well as retired employees, is impermissible. Consequently, the court restrained the respondent-Union of India from making any further recovery and ordered the refund of the amount already recovered, along with interest at 6% per annum to be paid within three months. If the payment was delayed beyond the stipulated period, the interest rate would increase to 9% per annum.

Additionally, taking into account the petitioner's age and the violation of the law, the court awarded costs amounting to Rs. 25,000, which were to be paid within three months.

Date of Decision: 05.05.2023

Kashmir Singh vs Union of India and others

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/5-May-23-P^0H-HC-Kashmir-Vs-Uoi.pdf"]

 

 

Latest Legal News