Point of Law : As soon as the excess/wrong payment made to a pensioner comes to the notice of the paying branch, the branch should adjust the same against the amount standing to the credit of the pensioner’s account to the extent possible including lump-sum arrears payment. [Para 13]

ORDER :

1. The petitioner, a widow, aged 73 years knocks the doors of this Court, alleging lack of sympathy or even empathy, on the part of the respondent/Canara Bank, a State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India (‘the Bank’ for short) in recovering Rs. 6,40,329/- from out of the family pension account of the petitioner and seeks a direction by issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing re-credit of the said amount.

2. Heard Sri Yogesh Naik, learned counsel for Sri B.O. Anil Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri T.P. Muthanna, learned counsel appearing for respondent/Bank.

3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts in brief, are as follows:

The petitioner is an account holder in the respondent/Bank and is a recipient of family pension from its hands. The husband of the petitioner one R.V. Pawar was working as a Technical Assistant Executive Engineer at Chief Engineer, C&B (S) Office, Government of Karnataka and retired from service on 31.05.2002. The said Government servant was having a regular pension account at Vishveshwarnagar Branch, Hubli of the erstwhile Syndicate Bank, which is now merged with the Bank. Till the end of February, 2019 R.V. Pawar was recipient of pension of Rs. 38,604/- from the Branch. On centralization of pension from March 2019, the Centralized Pension Processing Centre (‘CPPC’ for short) started making payment of pension to the pension holders. The account of the husband of the petitioner, which was at Hubli was later transferred to Kasturinagar Branch, Bangalore. Thereafter, the husband of the petitioner was being paid through Kasturinagar Branch from the CPPC.

4. From March 2019, the husband of the petitioner appears to have been paid Rs. 96,998/- per month in place of Rs. 38,604/- which resulted in excess payment of pension of Rs. 13,40,261/- upto 6th February, 2021, the date on which the husband of the petitioner dies. Therefore, there was an excess payment into the account of the husband of the petitioner from March, 2019 to 06-02-2021. The husband of the petitioner dies on 06.02.2021. After the death of the husband of the petitioner, family pension as payable to the petitioner was not immediately processed. The petitioner represented for payment of family pension. What the petitioner would get back is a communication that excess pension has been paid to the husband of the petitioner and later an order of refund of Rs. 13,40,261/- came to be passed against the petitioner. The petitioner again pleaded that she was not aware of the deposits made into the account of her husband and she being 73 years old cannot come to the Bank during the pandemic and sought to seek pension. What comes about is debit of Rs. 6,40,000/- from family pension account of the petitioner without even any communication on intermittent intervals. The petitioner complains to the Bank that the debits are unauthorized and then knocks the doors of this Court in the subject petition seeking re-credit of the alleged unauthorized debits.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was not aware of what the problem was but did admit that if there is any excess payment that has come to the account of the husband of the petitioner, she would clear it but not in one go. However, the Bank did not accede to her request and on intermittent intervals had debited Rs. 6,40,000/- from family pension amount and it is not even paying any family pension to the petitioner.

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/Bank, Sri T.P. Muthanna, would vehemently refute the submissions to contend that the petitioner is in receipt of unjust enrichment as the husband of the petitioner did very well know the amount that was being paid as pension and its threefold increase immediately. The increase was on account of certain mistake in the CPPC, where excess amount of pension was deposited into the account of the husband of the petitioner. Therefore, the