Recovery Of Excess Pension Due To Administrative Error Cannot Be Enforced Against Elderly Pensioners Or Widows: J&KHigh Court

Giving relief to an elderly woman pensioner in whose account an excess amount of pension was credited, the Jammu and Kashmir High Court held that if, due to an administrative error, an excess amount is credited to the accounts of elderly pensioners or widows which is withdrawn, the same cannot be recovered.

The court noted that the appellant is an elderly lady, 77 years of age, and a renal patient; as such, any harsh order of recovery in such extreme hardship would worsen her condition.

A division bench of Justice Sanjeev Kumar, Justice Moksha Khajuria Kazmi added that the amount was not withdrawn due to fraud, misrepresentation, collusion, negligence, favoritism, or carelessness on the part of the appellant; therefore, she cannot be made to suffer because of the negligent act of the respondent bank.

The court relied on State of Punjab vs. Rafiq Masih (2015) 4 SCC 334, which held that pension recovery should not be made from retired employees, widows, or those in financial distress. The court further added that since the overpayment was due to an administrative error and not misrepresentation or fraud by the appellant, the recovery was deemed unfair and arbitrary.

The court also noted that the Single Bench had earlier relied on a 2016 RBI circular, thereby leaving the matter of recovery of the excess amount of pension drawn by the petitioner to be considered and decided by the respondent bank. The court added that this circular was later withdrawn in 2021.

The court emphasized that the withdrawal of this circular meant the previous ruling could not be sustained, reinforcing that recovery could not be justified.

BACKGROUND

The appellant is a widow receiving a family pension after the death of her husband, who retired as a Drilling Engineer in the Geology and Mining Department in 1998. She received her pension regularly until June 2009, after which the bank refused further payments, citing an excess disbursal of ₹2,32,707. No prior notice regarding recovery was given to her before the deductions began. She filed a writ petition seeking to quash the recovery order and restore her monthly pension, which is her only source of income.

The Single Bench ruled that the bank should consider her case "compassionately, reasonably, and rationally" and not proceed with the recovery until a decision was made. Unsatisfied with this order, the appellant filed the present intra-court appeal, arguing that she should not be made to suffer due to an error by the authorities.

APPEARANCE:

Radha Sharma, Advocate for Appellants

Akash Gupta, Advocate. For Respondents

Case-title: Smt. Sudershan Sharma vs Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 97

Click Here To Read/Download Order