Government Can Resume Leased Land For Public Purpose; 'Substantial Compliance' Of 60-Day Notice Sufficient: Kerala High Court Revenue Can't Cite Pending Litigation to Justify One Year of Adjudication Inaction: Karnataka High Court Limitation | 1,142 Days of Silence: Orissa High Court Rejects Litigant's Claim That His Lawyer Never Called SC/ST Act's Bar on Anticipatory Bail Does Not Apply When Complaint Fails to Make Out Prima Facie Case: Karnataka High Court Oral Agreement for Sale Cannot Be Dismissed for Want of Stamp or Registration: Calcutta High Court Upholds Injunction Finance Company's Own Legal Manager Cannot Appoint Arbitrator — Award Passed by Such Arbitrator Is Non-Est and Inexecutable: Andhra Pradesh High Court District Court Cannot Remand Charity Commissioner's Order: Bombay High Court Division Bench Settles Conflicting Views Framing "Points For Determination" Not Always Mandatory For First Appellate Courts: Allahabad High Court Delhi HC Finds Rape Conviction Cannot Stand On Testimony Where Victim Showed 'Unnatural Concern' For Her Alleged Attacker Limitation in Partition Suit Cannot Be Decided Without Evidence: Karnataka High Court Cheque Dishonour Accused Can Probabilise Defence Without Entering Witness Box — Through Cross-Examination And Marked Documents Alone: Madras High Court Contributory Negligence | No Driving Licence and Three on a Motorcycle Cannot Mean the Victim Caused the Accident: Rajasthan High Court LL.B Degree Cannot Be Ground to Deny Maintenance to Divorced Wife: Gujarat High Court Dried Leaves and Branches Are Not 'Ganja': Delhi High Court Grants Bail Under NDPS Act Family Court Judge Secretly Compared Handwriting Without Telling Wife, Then Punished Her Hesitation: Delhi High Court Quashes Divorce Decree Co-Owner Can Sell Undivided Share in Joint Property Without Consent of Other Co-owners — Sale Deed Valid to Extent of Transferor's Share: Orissa High Court Mandatory Safeguards of Section 42 NDPS Cannot Be Bypassed — Even When 1329 Kg of Hashish Is Seized: Gujarat High Court Affirms Acquittal

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