Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Tarachand s/o Urkudaji Gajbhiye, a retired government employee, was aggrieved by an order dated 19.1.2016 issued by respondent No. 2, which recalculated his pension with retrospective effect from his retirement on 30.6.2010, reducing it, and ordered recovery of excess amounts paid. The reduction was based on a Government Circular dated 17.12.2013, which excluded a 'one step promotional increment' that had been temporarily available to employees working in naxal affected/tribal areas. The petitioner had initially challenged the entire action before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (MAT) in Original Application No. 186/2016, but later restricted his challenge to the recovery aspect only. The court noted that the petitioner was working in a tribal area on 30.6.2010 and was entitled to the one step promotional increment. The issue was whether the respondents could recover the excess payment after six years of superannuation. The court, without enlarging the judgment with full facts, considered the admitted position and held that recovery after such a long period from a retired employee is impermissible, especially when the employee was not at fault. The court allowed the petition to the extent of quashing the recovery order, but did not interfere with the pension recalculation itself.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Pension - Recovery of Excess Payment - Recovery from Retired Employee - Government Circular dated 17.12.2013 - The petitioner, a retired government employee, was paid pension including a one step promotional increment for working in a tribal area. After six years of retirement, the respondents sought to recover the excess payment based on a circular. The court held that recovery after such a long period from a retired employee is impermissible, especially when the employee was not at fault. (Paras 1-5) B) Service Law - Pension - Recalculation - Retrospective Effect - Government Circular dated 17.12.2013 - The respondents recalculated the petitioner's pension with retrospective effect from the date of retirement, reducing it. The court considered whether such retrospective reduction and recovery are valid. (Paras 2-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondents were entitled to recover the excess payment made to the petitioner after six years of his superannuation, based on a Government Circular dated 17.12.2013, which recalculated pension by excluding a one step promotional increment.
Final Decision
The court allowed the petition to the extent of quashing the recovery of excess amounts paid to the petitioner, but did not interfere with the pension recalculation itself. Rule made absolute accordingly.
Law Points
- Recovery of excess payment from retired employee
- Pension recalculation with retrospective effect
- One step promotional increment
- Government Circular dated 17.12.2013
- Principles against recovery from retired employees
