Drawing Dual Pension By Concealment Is Fraud On State Exchequer: Bombay HC Waives Interest On Recovery Considering Petitioner’s Remorse
Since the petitioner had expressed remorse and undertook to repay the excess pension received, the Court said that it would be appropriate to waive the interest component
The Bombay High Court has held that drawing dual pension by suppressing material information amounts to a fraud on the State exchequer, while dismissing a petition filed by a retired employee who had received pension from two separate employments. The Court observed that the petitioner had failed to disclose crucial details regarding an earlier pension while applying for benefits under the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995.
However, taking note of the petitioner’s conduct during the proceedings, the Court showed a measure of leniency and directed that no interest shall be levied on the amount to be recovered. The Court observed that since the petitioner had expressed remorse and undertook to repay the excess pension received, it would be appropriate to waive the interest component while permitting recovery of the principal amount.
In the matter, the Court found that after the closure of his first employer, the petitioner joined another company in 1997 and subsequently applied for pension relating to the earlier employment while still in service with the second employer.
Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge and Justice Abhay Mantri at the outset, in the judgment categorically observed, “This Petition brings out a classic case of misrepresentation, non-disclosure of material information and a systematic act of defrauding the State Exchequer. As we narrate the various dates and sequence of events in the light of the provisions of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995, the story of misrepresentation, non-disclosure and defrauding the State Exchequer, would unfold itself”.
“It is concluded that this Court should deprive all benefits to a litigant who does not come with clean hands to the Court. A Court should be most strict with a person who tries to play a fraud on the system. However, the Petitioner has sought mercy and has shown remorse and regret. He has also volunteered to let the excess amount received by him, to be deducted from the arrears of Pension to which he would now be eligible. He has also prayed that the Provident Fund Department should recalculate the pension to which the Petitioner would now be entitled to, by adding up his earlier employment along with the subsequent employment. Therefore, we are not inclined to levy the interest component on the excess amounts paid to the Petitioner”, the Bench further observed.
Advocate J. P. Kharge appeared for the petitioner, Rohit Sakhadeo, appointed as Amicus Curiae and Advocate Gunjan Chaubey appeared for the respondent.
The Court recorded that when the petitioner later retired from the second employment and submitted Form 10-D under the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995, he left blank the column requiring disclosure of any earlier pension being drawn. As a consequence, he began receiving pension for both employments simultaneously.
While referring to Kishore Samrite v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2013) 2 SCC 398 and Bhaskar Laxman Jadhav & Ors. v. Karamveer Kakasaheb Wagh Education Society & Ors. (2013) 11 SCC 531, the Bench warned that it could have taken a strict view in this matter in the light of the law laid down thereunder.
The Court holding that the petitioner’s conduct enabled him to draw two pensions in violation of the statutory scheme, concluded that such suppression of material information led to a systematic defrauding of the public exchequer and declined to grant relief.
Cause Title: Shamshuddin Ali Mullaji v. The Assistant Commissioner of Employees Provident Fund Commissioner (Pension) & Ors. [Neutral Citation: 2026:BHC-AS:11568-DB]
Appearances:
Petitioner: J. P. Kharge, Advocate.
Respondents: Rohit Sakhadeo, appointed as Amicus Curiae, Gunjan Chaubey a/w. Vinay Kate, Advocates.