Anita Sharma v. State Of U.P. And 5 Others

Heard Ms. Diksha Verma, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Sachin Mishra, learned counsel for respondent-Bank.

It is not disputed that petitioner got retired from the post of Senior Manager from respondent bank on 31.08.2019 and she was paid pension accordingly.

At this stage, this Court is not considering a dispute whether amount of pension determined was completely not paid in entirety since no such relief is raised in this writ petition, however, the petitioner is at liberty to represent before concerned respondent.

The question before this Court is that petitioner got appointed in the year 1989, however, while determining retiral benefits, due to error in computer feeding, year of appointment was mentioned as 1985 and therefore, a calculation error erupted and after about 6 years, a process of recovery was initiated and while making the calculation for recovery, a due amount towards Computer Arrears was also adjusted. The total recovery amount was about Rs. 3,90,000/- and after adjusting the amount to be received by petitioner towards Computer Arrears i.e. about Rs. 2,40,000/-, the net recovery amount was determined about Rs. 1,83,000/- and, as per instructions of learned counsel for respondent-Bank, it is being recovered w.e.f. 27.03.2025 to the tune of Rs. 15,000/- per month.

Learned counsel for petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgment of Supreme Court in State of Punjab and others vs. Rafiq Masih (White 2 WRIA No. 14587 of 2025 Washer) and others, (2015) 4 SCC 334 that when the petitioner has not committed any fraud or misrepresentation, any deduction from pension after such a long period would be illegal.

Learned counsel for respondents-Bank submits that recovery was made due to a fact that year of appointment was wrongly mentioned in the calculation sheet, therefore, excess amount was directed to be recovered. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance upon a judgment of Supreme Court in Chandi Prasad Uniyal and others vs. State of Uttarakhand and others, (2012) 8 SCC 417.

I have considered above submissions and perused the records.

Considering overall facts and circumstances of case and submissions of learned counsel for parties, this Court is of view that petitioner has made out a case for interference, therefore, it is directed that from 01.10.2025, concerned respondents-Bank will not recover any amount from the pension of petitioner and petitioner will be entitled to get entire pension, as determined earlier.

So far as other part of order is concerned, whereby Rs. 2,40,000/- due for Computer Arrears was wrongly adjusted, therefore, in the interest of justice, it is directed that respondents will pay Rs. 1,50,000/- to the petitioner towards Computer Arrears.

It is also necessary to observe that petitioner was working as a Senior Manager, therefore, she ought to have conscious that a wrong calculation was made and in order to show her bonafides, she should have pointed out such error to avoid such orders.