CAT quashes order for recovery from retd Chandigarh cop
Termed the recovery illegal, arbitrary, unjust
The Chandigarh Bench of the Central Administration Tribunal (CAT) has quashed the order for recovering an amount of over Rs 1 lakh from a retired cop of the Chandigarh Police given mistakenly by the department concerned.
Terming the recovery illegal, arbitrary, unjust and unsustainable, the tribunal has directed the refund of the recovered amount to the applicant, along with interest at the GPF rate from the date of recovery till the date of actual payment. It said that the exercise should be carried out within eight weeks from the receipt of a certified copy of this order.
Surjit Singh, a resident of Mohali, in an application filed before the tribunal said that he voluntarily retired from service on November 1, 2019, as ORP Inspector. Before retirement, the Police Department had issued him a no-due certificate. Thereafter, the pension payment order (PPO) was issued and his retiral dues, including pension, were released without objection. He continues to draw pension regularly.
Subsequently, during pension revision, the parent department informed the pension authorising authority i.e. Accountant General (A&E), Chandigarh, that an excess payment of Rs 1,02,468 had been made due to wrong date of annual increment applied after pay step-up, and the same may be recovered from the gratuity of the applicant.
The Accountant General (A&E) issued a revised certificate, directing that overpayment of Rs 1,02,468 may be recovered from him. Consequently, this amount was deducted from gratuity without issuing any show-cause notice. Aggrieved by the action of the respondents, he submitted a representation dated December 20, 2023, to the respondents for redress of his grievance, but of no avail. He contended that no opportunity of hearing or show-cause notice was served despite the recovery having been made.
The applicant further contended that the order was contradictory and unsustainable as the respondents issued a no-due certificate before his superannuation, and no reason had been provided as to why the stepping-up rectification surfaced only in 2023. He said that his pay was fixed entirely by the department. The applicant further stated that the recovery was being imposed after more than three years of retirement, which was impermissible. However, the Administration justified the decision of recovery of the amount.
After hearing the arguments Suresh Kumar Batra, member, tribunal, said that from the records it appeared that there was no allegation of fraud, misrepresentation or fault of the employee i.e. the applicant to have caused the erroneous fixation of pay. The wrong fixation of the annual increment is due to negligence of the official concerned.
In view of this, the recovery from the applicant is illegal, arbitrary, unjust and unsustainable. Accordingly, the order dated April 5, 2023, was quashed and set aside. Respondents have been directed to refund the recovered amount to the applicant.
