JUDGMENT : ANAND SHARMA, J. 1. Petitioner has challenged the order dated 08.08.2017 along with office note-sheet and statement whereby, recovery is sought to be made from the family pension, being received by the petitioner in lieu of services rendered by her husband-Late Shri Rajeev Kaushik. 2. In the instant writ petition, it has been submitted by the petitioner that her husband Late Shri Rajeev Kaushik was holding substantive post of LDC in respondent-Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (for short, ‘the RSRTC’). He took voluntary retirement on 30.08.2011, soon thereafter, unfortunately died on account of disease of Cancer on 23.01.2012. 3. It has been stated by the petitioner that under such circumstances, the respondents sanctioned family pension in favour of the petitioner w.e.f. 24.01.2012, which the petitioner continued to receive @ Rs.9,150/- per month at the relevant time. 4. The petitioner has also stated that on account of on going disease, she could not check her bank account where her family pension was being deposited. However, when it appeared to her that some deductions were made, she enquired into the fact and could learn that without giving any opportunity of hearing and without even issuing any show cause notice, one order of recovery dated 08.08.2017 was issued by the respondent-Corporation, whereby pension payable to the petitioner was reduced and directions for recovery of excess payments were also given. 5. The petitioner further states that even such order of recovery was never served upon the petitioner and without even serving the order of recovery, Bank was directed to effect the recovery and accordingly Rs. 76,173/- were illegally recovered from the petitioner, which is not only causing financial loss to her but has also caused serious prejudice and miscarriage of justice. 6. On receiving notice of the writ petition, the respondents have filed reply to the writ petition stating therein that after completion of five years, as per Rules prevailing in respondent-Corporation, in case original pensioner dies during five years of commencing pension, the dependents would be entitled to the same amount of pension, which was being received by the pensioner at the time of death. However, thereafter amount of pension would be reduced as prescribed. However, thereafter amount of pension would be reduced as prescribed. The respondents have further stated that in view of the above, the petitioner was entitled only for reduced the family pension of Rs.5490/- per month but on account of inadvertence and error, she was paid the same higher pension without reducing the same. When such mistake was detected, order dated 08.08.2017 was issued to modify the amount of pension and accordingly, directions were also given to make recovery of excess payments, in which, there is no infirmity or illegality. 7. I have examined the material on record and have also heard learned counsel for the parties. 8. From analysis of the documents, pleadings the parties and arguments, it is clear that there was no allegation of misrepresentation or fraud upon the petitioner in getting higher amount of family pension. Rather such higher amount was released by the respondents at their own without there being any overt-act on behalf of the petitioner. The respondents have not also disputed the contention of the petitioner that no opportunity of hearing or even show cause notice was issued by the respondents prior to issuing order dated 08.08.2017. The respondents are also not in a position to show that even the order dated 08.08.2017 was served upon the petitioner or not. 9. In such circumstances, even if as per Rules, the respondents were required to reduce the pension after completion of five years as stated in the reply, they have got no right to effect any recovery whatsoever in the circumstances, where principles of natural justice have not been followed; nor is there any allegation with regard to misrepresentation, suppression of fact or fraud against the petitioner. 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jagdish Prasad Singh V. State of Bihar and Ors. reported in 2024 AIR (SC) 3950 has categorically held that any step of reduction in the pay scale and recovery from a Government employee would tantamount to a punitive action because the same has drastic civil as well as evil consequences. 11. In the case of State Of Punjab & Ors vs Rafiq Masih reported in 2015(4) SCC 334 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has given the clear verdict that recovery from the retired employees cannot be made. Such principle, indeed, is also applicable in the instant case, where recovery from family pension has been directed to be effected. 12. 11. In the case of State Of Punjab & Ors vs Rafiq Masih reported in 2015(4) SCC 334 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has given the clear verdict that recovery from the retired employees cannot be made. Such principle, indeed, is also applicable in the instant case, where recovery from family pension has been directed to be effected. 12. In the case of Jogeshwar Sahoo & Ors. Vs. District Judge, Cuttack & Ors., decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 04.04.2025 reported in 2025 LawSuit(SC) 462, it has been held that where the excess payment was not made on account of any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee; and such excess payment was made by the employer by applying a wrong principle for calculating the pay/allowance or on the basis of a particular interpretation of Rule/order, which is subsequently found to be erroneous, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that in such cases recovery of excess payments cannot be made from the pensioners. It has also been held that the pensioners are in a more disadvantageous position, when compared to in-service employees. Any attempt to recover excess wrong payment would cause undue hardship to them. 13. In the light of the above facts, material on record and the judgments delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the impugned order dated 08.08.2017 deserves to be quashed, so far as it relates to recovery of excess amount. The amount illegal recovered from the petitioner pursuant to the aforesaid order dated 08.08.2017 shall be refunded back to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of certified copy of this order, failing which such amount shall carry interest @ 6% per annum. 14. Resultantly, the instant writ petition stands allowed. 15. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.