CAT quashes recovery order of excess amount from retired Chandigarh cop

The Chandigarh Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) has quashed an order directing the recovery of over Rs 1 lakh from a retired Inspector of the Chandigarh Police, terming the action illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable.

The Tribunal has directed the authorities to refund the recovered amount of Rs 1,02,468 to the applicant along with interest at the General Provident Fund (GPF) rate from the date of recovery till the date of actual payment.

The Tribunal said that the exercise shall be completed 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 an ORP Inspector. Before his retirement, the Police Department issued him a ‘No Due Certificate’. Thereafter, a Pension Payment Order (PPO) was issued and his retiral dues, including pension, were released without objection. He has been drawing his pension regularly since then.

However, during a later pension revision exercise, the department informed the Pension Authorising Authority – the Accountant General (A&E), UT Chandigarh – that an excess payment of Rs 1,02,468 had been made due to a wrong date of annual increment applied after a pay step-up. It requested that the amount be recovered from his gratuity.

Acting on this communication, the Accountant General issued a revised certificate directing recovery of the excess amount.

The sum was subsequently deducted from Singh’s gratuity without issuing any show-cause notice.

Aggrieved by the action, Singh submitted a representation on December 20, 2023, for redressal, but received no relief. In his plea before the Tribunal, he contended that no opportunity of hearing was given to him despite the recovery having civil consequences.

The administration, however, justified the decision of recovery of the amount.

After hearing both sides, Tribunal member Suresh Kumar Batra observed that there was no allegation of fraud, misrepresentation or fault of the part of the applicant in the erroneous fixation of pay. The stepping-up and alignment of increments were administrative decisions initiated by the department, and the wrong fixation of annual increment was due to the negligence of the concerned official.

“In view of this, the recovery from the applicant is illegal, arbitrary, unjust and unsustainable,” the Tribunal held.

Accordingly, the order dated April 5, 2023, directing recovery was quashed and set aside.