Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:43292 NAFR HIGH COURT of CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6883 of 2018 Smt. Dileshwari Yadav W/o Late Shri Anjor Singh Yadav Aged About 44 Years R/o Quarter No. 11/24, officer Colony, S.F. Line Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh versus --- Petitioner 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of Home, Mahanadi Chhattisgarh. Bhawan, Mantralaya New Raipur, District Raipur 2 - Assistant General Manager State Bank of India, Centralized Pension Processing Cell Behind Working Women Hostel, Govindpura, Bhopal (Madhya Pradesh). Pin 462023 3 - Branch Manager State Bank of India, At office Near Main Chowk, Bhanupratappur, Antagarh Road, Bhanupratappur, District Kanker Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) WPS No. 7623 of 2018 1 - Smt. Sumanlata W/o Late Shri Aadesh Kumar Pal Aged About 32 Years R/o Quarter No. B Block, B4, Stf Colony Raipur Naka, S.F. Line Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of Home, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Assistant General Manager State Bank of India, Centralized Pension Processing Cell Behind Working Women Hostel, Govindpura, Bhopal (Madhya Pradesh) Pin 462023., District : Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh 3 - Branch Manager, State Bank of India, At office Ganjpara, Durg, District Durg 2 Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) For Petitioner
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Barun Chakraborty with Mr. G.P. Mathur, Advocate For State For State Bank of India : Mr. Vedant Shadangi, Panel Lawyer : Mr. P. R. Patankar, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 26. 08.2025 1. By way of these petitions, the petitioners have sought the following relief(s):- “10.i) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash Annexure P/1 and restrain the respondent from making further recovery and to refund the recovered amount with 18% interest and also blocked ATM card and account may kindly be opened, in the interest of justice. ii) Any other relief which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case including cost of the petition, may also be granted.” 2. The facts of the present case are that the husbands of the petitioners were working as Constables in the Police Department, and during Naxalite operations, the husband of the petitioner in WPS No. 6883/2018 died on 05.05.2011 and the husband of the petitioner in WPS No. 7623/2018 died on 05.04.2012. The petitioners, being the widows of the deceased constables, were found eligible for the benefit of Extraordinary Pension. The office of the Joint Director, Accounts and Pension prepared pay notes and 3 forwarded them to the respondent Bank. It was specifically observed by the State Authorities, i.e., by the office of the Joint Director, Accounts and Pension, that the petitioners would not be entitled to Dearness Allowance. However, due to a mistake committed by the Bank, Dearness Allowance was added to the pension amount as assessed by the said office. The extraordinary pension payable to the petitioner in WPS No. 7623/2018 was ₹ 14,347/-, and to the petitioner in WPS No. 6883/2018 it was 15,936/-. In ₹ WPS No. 7623/2018, the petitioner received excess payment from 01.07.2012 to 31.08.2018 amounting to 11,94,418/-, and in WPS No. ₹ 6883/2018, excess payment was made from 01.09.2011 to 31.07.2018, amounting to 13,47,677/-. The mistakes were detected by the Bank ₹ authorities in the year 2018 itself, and thereafter notices were issued to the petitioners regarding recovery, against which the present petitions have been filed. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners, being widows of deceased constables, are receiving Extraordinary Pension under the policy of the State Government. It is contended that there was no misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the petitioners; rather, the mistake was solely on the part of the Bank. It is further submitted that though the authorization orders issued by the Director, Treasury and Pension specifically recorded that the beneficiaries were not entitled to Dearness Allowance, the same was extended and continued for more than six years. It is further contended that the Bank did 4 not afford any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and started recovery of the amount from their bank accounts. It is submitted that the order of recovery, if any, and the recovery already made, deserve to be quashed, and the respondent Bank may be directed to refund the recovered amount. 4. On the other hand, Mr. P.R. Patankar, learned counsel appearing for the State Bank of India would oppose the submission made by counsel for the petitioner and submit that though the excess payment has been made in the Extraordinary Pension to the petitioners, however they were not entitled to Dearness Allowance. It is submitted that due to the Bank’s mistake, the benefit was wrongly extended. He would further submit that in terms of the circulars and guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India and Government of India, the Bank is empowered to recover such excess payment. He also submitted that undertakings were given by the petitioners to the effect that any loss suffered by the Bank would be recoverable from them. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sahib Ram vs. State of Haryana reported in 1995 SUPP. (1) SCC 18, Shyam Babu Verma and others vs. Union of India and others, reported in 1994 (2) SCC 521, Union of India And Anr. vs M. Bhaskar And Ors, reported in 1996 (4) SCC 416, V. Gangaram vs. Regional Joint Director and others, reported 5 in 1997 (6) SCC 139, has categorically held that if excess payment was not made on account of 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 pay/allowance or on the basis of a particular interpretation of rules/order which is subsequently found to be erroneous, the order of recovery would not be competent. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others, (2015) 4 SCC 334, held that the excess payment made to an employee cannot be recovered, if such a Government servant is a Class-III or Class-IV employee, the order has been issued after five years and the order of recovery has been issued after the retirement of an employee. The relevant para 18 is reproduced herein-below:- “18. It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship which would govern employees on the issue of recovery, where payments have mistakenly been made by the employer, in excess of their entitlement. Be that as it may, based on the decisions referred to hereinabove, we may, as a ready reference, summarise the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law: (i) Recovery from employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV service (or Group 'C' and Group 'D' service). (ii) Recovery from retired employees, or employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery. (iii) Recovery from employees, when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery is issued. (iv) Recovery in cases where an employee has wrongfully been required to discharge duties of a 6 higher post, and has been paid accordingly, even though he should have rightfully been required to work against an inferior post. (v) In any other case, where the court arrives at the conclusion, that recovery if made from the employee, would be iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary to such an extent, as would far outweigh the equitable balance of the employer's right to recover.” 7. The principles of law laid down in the above referred decisions would apply in the case of pensioners also, and they may seek a direction that wrong payments should not be recovered, as pensioners are in a more disadvantageous position when compared to in-service employees. 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Col. (Retd.) B.J. Akkara vs The Govt. of India & Ors reported in (2006) 11 SCC 709, in para 27, 28, & 29 held as under:- “27. The last question to be considered is whether relief should be granted against the recovery of the excess payments made on account of the wrong interpretation/understanding of the circular dated 7.6.1999. This Court has consistently granted relief against recovery of excess wrong payment of emoluments/allowances from an employee, if the following conditions are fulfilled [Vide Sahib Ram vs. State of Haryana [1995 Suppl.1 SCC 18], Shyam Babu Verma vs. Union of India [1994 (2) SCC 521], Union of India vs. M. Bhaskar [1996 (4) SCC 416], and V. Gangaram vs. Regional Joint Director [AIR 1997 SC 2776] : a) The excess payment was not made on account of any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee. b) Such excess payment was made by the employer by 7 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. 28. Such relief, restraining recovery back of excess payment, is granted by courts not because of any right in the employees, but in equity, in exercise of judicial discretion, to relieve the employees, from the hardship that will be caused if recovery is implemented. A Government servant, particularly one in the lower rungs of service would spend whatever emoluments he receives for the upkeep of his family. If he receives an excess payment for a long period, he would spend it genuinely believing that he is entitled to it. As any subsequent action to recover the excess payment will cause undue hardship to him, relief is granted in that behalf. But where the employee had knowledge that the payment received was in excess of what was due or wrongly paid, or where the error is detected or corrected within a short time of wrong payment, Courts will not grant relief against recovery. The matter being in the realm of judicial discretion, courts may on the facts and circumstances of any particular case refuse to grant such relief against recovery. 29. On the same principle, pensioners can also seek a direction that wrong payments should not be recovered, as 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. The petitioners are not guilty of any misrepresentation or fraud in regard to the excess payment. NPA was added to minimum pay, for purposes of stepping up, due to a wrong understanding by the implementing 8 departments. We are therefore of the view that Respondents shall not recover any excess payments made towards pension in pursuance of circular dated 7.6.1999 till the issue of the clarificatory circular dated 11.9.2001. In so far as any excess payment made after the circular dated 11.9.2001, obviously the Union of India will be entitled to recover the excess as the validity of the said circular has been upheld and as pensioners have been put on notice in regard to the wrong calculations earlier made. 9. In the present case, the petitioners are widow of the deceased Constables, who lost their lives in naxallite operation and there was no misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the petitioners. The DA was was wrongly fixed by the respondent/bank itself, and therefore, the petitioners cannot be penalized. 10. Considering the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the facts of the present cases, the orders of recovery, if any, are hereby quashed. The respondent bank shall not recover any amount paid in excess to the petitioner, and the amount which has already been recovered shall be refunded forthwith. 11. Accordingly, this petition is hereby allowed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nadim