Delay in Test Identification & Absence of Motive Fatal to Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man for Murder Tokre Koli or Dhor Koli – Both Stand on Same Legal Footing: Bombay High Court Slams Scrutiny Committee for Disregarding Pre-Constitutional Records Consent Is No Defence When Victim Is Under 16: Delhi High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Granting Pre-Arrest Bail in Minor Rape Cases Would Send a Harmful Societal Signal: Delhi High Court Refuses Anticipatory Bail to Accused Citing POCSO’s Rigorous Standards Void Marriage No Shield Against Cruelty Charges: Karnataka High Court Affirms Section 498A Applies Even In Deceptive and Void Marital Relationships Consolidation Authorities Cannot Confer Ownership Or Alter Scheme Post Confirmation Without Due Process: Punjab & Haryana High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Jurisdiction Over Void Post-Scheme Orders Litigation Policy is Not Law, Can’t Enforce Guidelines Through Courts: Rajasthan High Court Refuses to Entertain Quo Warranto Against Additional Advocate General’s Appointment Daughter’s Right Extinguished When Partition Effected Prior to 2005 Amendment: Madras High Court Trial Courts Cannot Direct Filing of Challan After Conviction — Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Directions Against DSP Veer Singh Rule 4 Creates Parity, Not a Parallel Pension Pipeline: Rajasthan High Court Denies Dual Pension to Ex-Chief Justice Serving as SHRC Chairperson Right to Be Heard Must Be Preserved Where Claim Has a Legal Basis: Orissa High Court Upholds Impleadment of Will Beneficiary in Partition Suit Long-Term Ad Hocism Is Exploitation, Not Employment: Orissa High Court Orders Regularization Of Junior Typist After 25 Years Of Service PIL Cannot Be a Tool for Personal Grievances: Supreme Court Upholds Municipal Body’s Power to Revise Property Tax After 16 Years Omission of Accused’s Name by Eyewitness in FIR is a Fatal Lacuna: Supreme Court Acquits Man Convicted of Murder Correction In Revenue Map Under Section 30 Isn’t A Tool To Shift Plot Location After 17 Years: Supreme Court Quashes High Court’s Remand Casteist Abuses Must Be In Public View: Supreme Court Quashes SC/ST Act Proceedings Where Alleged Insults Occurred Inside Complainant’s House Resignation Bars Pension, But Not Gratuity: Supreme Court Draws Sharp Line Between Voluntary Retirement and Resignation in DTC Employee Case

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