Smt Sumitra Gusain v. State Of Haryana And Others

 

   



  !"#"$% &'

&'

()*"

+ )# "$   ,

"

"$ + - +#)# (

  +.

$ $/ +#  , #1$/ $ # 2% 342'( 2(4
 

 

      


  ! "# $$$ 2(45 %& ' (

)  ""*+"",   -  .  /         "

 )001  !  0 2     3  4  5 ! 2  #( (6 "667 0("

("

"6(8 )9 00 2 0 2  0 

 

 ("

("

"6(* 0   0    2  0 0 9

  

   )      

   "6""

 &  :  2/            

  2 )0  ; 2 0        - ₹(6666+ 2 #

 1     ! "  # ;  9   920 2/ 0

  "6(* "6""2  ); 2 0 0    "( "6"< %;  "'  2₹6,20,153/- has been served upon the petitioner.

 .     2      9  09  <

From the perusal of record, it is evident that there was no lapse or fraud on the part of the petitioner. She was entitled to pension from 20142016 and thereafter, family pension. The respondent, as per its choice, paid pension till 2022. The petitioner is not disputing revised pension. She has agreed that she would not raise dispute with respect to family pension payable from 2022. Her grievance is confined to past recovery. *

The petitioner is a widow and she was not at fault. She at present is 62 years old and getting family pension of ₹19,492/-. Her case is squarely covered by judgment of Supreme Court in
  

  

 6



 


,

In the backdrop, the present petition deserves to be allowed and is allowed to the extent of recovery of past excess payment. Accordingly, it

7 is hereby held that no further recovery shall be made from the petitioner with respect to alleged excess payment.  82(49  

&'

&'



 =/ + >+! =9  >+!