High Court · 2025

Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of tvlandamus, declaring the action of the respondents 2 and 3 in deducting the amount from the pension of the Petitioner vide Lr No. CPPC/HYD/658 Dt. 11.6.2018 so as to deduct an amount of Rs 3,265/- (1/3rd of gross pension) Per Month on the ground of excess payment of pension of an amount of Rs. 8,13,8711- ( from Dec, 2012 to May, 2018) without any notice to the Petitioner and without following due process of law as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles '14,16,19 and 21 of Constitution of lndia and set aside the same. l.A.NO:1 OF 2018 Petition Under Section '151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to restore the amount of Rs. 4,49,9541 in the petitioners bank account No. 10037539387 of State Bank of lndia Aliabad Branch by suspendrng the Lr No. CPPC/HYD/658 Dt 11 .6.2018 of the 3rd respondent. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI KIRAN PALAKURTHI Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 : SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : SRI A.B. GANGA REDDY REPRESENTING M/S PEARL LAW ASSOCIATES The Court made the following ORDER I I I I ; I I i : i I i i HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No.235E7 of 2018 ORDER: This writ petition is hled for the following relief; " to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 2 and 3 in deducting the amount from the pension of the petitioner vide LT.No.CPPC/HYD/658, Dt.l 1.6 .2018 so as to deduct an amount of Rs.3,265/- l/j'd of gross pension Per Month on the ground of excess payment of pension of an amount of Rs.8,13,87L/-(from Dec,2)l2 to May 20lB) without any notice to the petitioner and without following due process of law as illegal, arbi*ary and violative of Articles 14, 16, 19 and 2l of Constitution of India and set aside the same".

2. The case of the petitioner is that she is the wife of late Guvvala Babu Rao, who was employed as a Technician-C (Carpenter) in the Defence Metallurgical Research Laboratory (DMRL), Kanchan Bagh, Hyderabad. Her husband passed away on

25.11.2004 while in service, leaving behind the petitioner, two sons, and two daughters as his legal heirs. Subsequent to her husband's death, petitioner was declared entitled to a family pension, which she received without interruption from September 20G5,.-drawing Pts. 24,5'17l- per month until May 2018, under PPO 2 NBK, J l/.P.No.235E7 of 2018 Unique ID No. F02786719. The petitioner claims to have faced financial difficulties in arranging her daughters' mariages and supporting her unemployed sons, relying soleiy on her pension to meet family obligations, including medical expenses. Further case of the petitioner is that in June 2018, the petitioner's family pension was suddenly stopped by the 3'd respondent bank without prior notice. Additionally, an amount of Rs. 4,49,9 541- was deducted from her account. Upon inquiry, it was informed by the bank, through letter No. CPPC/[fYD/658 dared 11.06.2018, rhar an alleged ovelpayment of Rs. 8,13,871/- had been made since 2012. The bank proposed to recover this amount in 250 equated monthly installments of Rs.3,265l- each. It is the contention of the petitioner that the stoppage of her pension and the recovery actions caused severe hnancial hardship and sudden deduction deprived her of savings meant for her granddaughters' marriages and medical needs. Further contends that the actions of the respondents were undertaken without issuing any prior notice or following due process, violating the principles of natural justice and denies 3 NRK, J WP.No.23587 of 2018 responsibility for the alleged overpayment of pension, claiming it resulted solely from an error on the part of the 2nd respondent.

4. Heard Sri Kiran Palakurthi, leamed counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.B. Ganga Reddy, leamed counsel representing IWs Pearl Law Associates, leamed counsel for respondent No.3

5. It is contended by the leamed counsel for the petitioner that the issue raised in the present wlit petition is squarely covered by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and others vs. Rafiq Masih (l{hite lYasher) I, wherein, it is held that the excess amount erroneously paid to an employee by the employer, cannot be recovered after retirement.

5. Leamed counsel fbr respondent No.3 has not disputed the said contention

6. l-he Hon'ble Supreme Court, in paragraph 18 of the Rafiq Masih (supra) observed as follows: "18. It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship which would govern r 2015(4)SCC 314 4 NBK, J W.P.No.235E7 of 2018 { 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 decisktns referred lo hereinabove, we may, as a ready reference, summarise the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law: Recovery from the employees belonging to Class III and Class IV service (or Group C and Group D service). Recovery from the retired employees, or the employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order oJ'recovery. O (i) (iii) Recovery from the employees, when the excess pq)ment has been made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery is issued. (i") Recovery in cases where an employee has wrongfully been required to discharge duties of a higher post, and has been paid accordingly, even though he should have righfully been required to work against an inferior post. ln any other case. where the court arriyes at the conclusion, that recovery if made from the employee, would be iniqui tous or harsh or arbitrary to such an extent, as would far outweigh the equitable balance of the employer's right to reco\er." (") 1 I 5 NBK, J l/.P.No,2j587 of 2018

7. In the instant case, the petitioner has been in receipt of family pension since the demise of her husband in the year 2004' and the pensionwas stopped suddenly in 2018, i'e'' after 14 years of the commencement of family pension, on the ground of an erroneous payment, and an amount of Rs'4,49,954/-' without notice to the petitioner before stoppage of pension; and an amount of Rs.4,49,9541- was deducted from her account' Admittedly' the alleged excess payment was not due to the fault of the petitioner' Further, the amount of Rs.4,49,954/- was deducted without her consent, as nothing is placed before the Court to show if the petitioner was aware of any such deduction' In that view of the matter, this Court is of the view that the impugned action of the respondent authorities in proposing to deduct Rs'8'13'871/- for alleged excess payment, and deducting an amount of Rs'4'49'954/- from the account of the petitioner, with regular deductions at the rate of Rs.3,265l- per month for 250 months' to realize the alleged excess payment, is arbitrary and illegat and therefore liable to be set aside, considering the rationale in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in RaIiq Masih (supra)' I 6 ,-] NBK, J lLP.No.23587 oJ 2018

8. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to remit back the amount of Rs.4.49.954/- to the petitioner's account, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy ol this order. It is further directed that no deductions shall be made from the monthly pension of the petitioner on account of the atleged excess payment. No costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/. L. VIJAYA LAXMI GISTRAR OFFICER 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The Union of lndia, Ministry of Defense, New D The Defense Pension Disbursing Officer, Masa The Asst. General Manager, State Bank of lndia, Centralized Pension Processing Centre (CPPC -4472) 1Sf Floor, Scab Building, Telangana LHO, Compound, Bank Street, Koti, Hyderabad - 500 095. One CC to SRI KIRAN PALAKURTHI, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF lNDIA, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to SRI A.B.GANGA REDDY, Advocate (OPUC) Two CD Copies , Hyderabad. To SA TJ HIGH COURT DATED:0310412025 1Ht rl4 t{o ( eJ o o 2 4 Jutl 2u5 * oF" r-Al c ,-r (--r1 T -/- C, l.tt ORDER WP.No.23587 of 2018 DISPOSING OF THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. LO