UNION OF INDIA Vs. NARENDRA BHUSHAN SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners have filed the petition challenging the order dated 17.09.2019 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that respondent no.1 was working with the petitioners and retired from service on 31.08.1990. On 27.01.2010 pension of the respondent no.1 was refixed from Rs.6,546/- per month to Rs.5,581/- per month. On the basis of the same, recovery was effected by the Bank vis ?-vis excess payment made to respondent no.1. Learned Tribunal has erred in allowing the application moved by the respondent no.1 challenging the recovery of excess payment made to him. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in High Court of Punjab & Haryana & Ors. Vs. Jagdev Singh (2016) 14 Supreme Court Cases 267, wherein, it was held as under:-

(3.) Learned counsel for respondent no.1 has opposed the petition and has submitted that while revising the pension of the respondent no.1, no notice was issued to him. Although, respondent no.1 had not challenged the said order, but recovery of the excess payment made to the respondent no.1 could not be effected from him as respondent no.1 had never made any misstatement before the Authorities. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) & Ors. (2015) 4 Supreme Court Cases 334.