Daya Nand Saini vs North Delhi Municipal Corporation & Others

L Narasimha Reddy, J

The applicant retired from the service of the North Delhi Municipal Corporation on 31.05.2011 as Assistant Malaria Inspector. He was also sanctioned pension and was being paid the same from time to time. On 08.11.2019 the respondent corporation issued proceedings through which the particulars of the pension of the applicant are furnished. In a note appended to the proceedings, it has been mentioned that recovery of excess payment of Rs.2,23,793/- is to be made. The applicant feels aggrieved by the note and filed this OA. He contends that neither any order was passed before the recovery was ordered, nor a notice was issued.

We heard Mr.Arav Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr.R.V.Sinha, learned standing counsel for the Municipal Corporation.

It is a matter of record that the applicant retired from service as Assistant Inspector of Anti Malaria Operations from the North Delhi Municipal Corporation way back on 31.05.2011. On their own accord, the respondents sanctioned pension and released retirement benefits also. The circumstances under which the first respondent issued an order dated 08.11.2019, are not immediately known. A perusal of the same discloses that the particulars such as basic pension, commuted value, residual pension, dearness relief, etc, are furnished. At the end a notice added, and it reads as under :

"Note : Recovery of Excess Payment w.e.f. 01.06.2011 to 31.10.2019 amounting to Rs.2,23,793 - to be recovered from pensioner's a/c & send in the shape of Demand Draft in favour of commissioner/North DMC immediately. Difference of Commutation, if any, has already been adjusted."

A perusal of the same discloses that the respondents have taken a view that between 01.06.2011 and 31.10.2019, a sum of Rs.2,23,793/- was paid in excess.

Assuming that there was any excess payment to the applicant, the respondents were under obligation to put the applicant on notice, duly indicating the reasons as well as the nature of proposed action. It is only after hearing the applicant, that the respondents could have passed an order either directing recovery or reducing the pension. On the sole ground that the applicant was not put on due notice before the recovery was ordered and the pension was reduced, the impugned order deserves to be set aside.

We, therefore, allow the OA and set aside the order dated 08.11.2019. We, however, leave it open to the 1st respondent to issue notice to the applicant and to pass an order after taking into account the explanation that may be subject to the outcome of the OA. Till such time, the applicant shall be paid pension as usual, without any reduction. They shall also release the pension for the months of November 2019 onwards, if it was not released to the applicant, within a period of four weeks.

There shall be no order as to costs.