# 2021-249 Pay and Benefits, Post living differential

Case summary

F&R date: 2022-12-16

The grievor challenged the decision that she reimburse an overpayment of the Post living differential (PLD) after receiving it by mistake for several years, following a posting to Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu. She is of the view that she did everything she could to ensure that she was eligible for the PLD and that she was the victim of an administrative error caused by misinterpretation of policies by the administrative staff.

The Director General Compensation and Benefits as Initial Authority (IA) concluded that the grievor was treated in accordance with the existing regulations. The IA explained that although the grievor was authorized to move her household goods and effects to the Montreal Post living differential area (PLDA), the monthly rate for the Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu PLDA where her place of duty was located was $0 and therefore, she had to repay the excess amount received. 

The Committee found that, under subsection 205.45(8) of the Compensation and Benefits Instructions, the grievor was only entitled to the PLD at the rate established for the PLDA of her place of duty of $0. However, given the circumstances of this payment, the Committee determined that the recovery of an overpayment given to the grievor since her posting to Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu was not reasonable. In the grievor's case, the checks made with the competent authorities and the long period during which she received the PLD were two elements that led her to believe that she was entitled to it. The Committee found that the grievor had been aggrieved by two measures, namely, the PLD benefits paid over a long period of time to which she was not entitled, and the subsequent decision to recover the overpayments, given the mistreatment of her file by the Canadian Armed Forces. 

The Committee recommended that the Final Authority afford redress to the grievor.