JUDGMENT :

1. The present writ petition has been filed for restraining the respondents from making any recovery of the alleged excess payment of family pension made to the petitioner herein as also for directing the respondents to refund a sum of Rs. 1,11,279/- illegally recovered from the account of the petitioner herein.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the deceased husband of the petitioner herein Late Dharam Nath Singh was working in the Government of India with effect from 04.03.1964 and had superannuated from his services on 31.07.1997. While working on the post of Senior Auditor and serving in the office of Chief Comptroller of Defence Account (Pension), Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh a pension payment order dated 27th June, 1997 was issued to the husband of the petitioner and the pension was commenced with effect from 01.08.1997. Unfortunately, the husband of the petitioner died on 08.04.2001 whereafter the petitioner had applied for family pension in the prescribed format and thereupon she started getting family pension from the respondent-Bank in Account No. 11632008308. Suddenly, the petitioner received a letter dated 17.02.2008 stating therein that the petitioner was liable to be paid family pension @ of Rs. 3665/- up to 03.07.2004 and thereafter she was to be paid a sum of Rs. 2220/-, however, by mistake the enhanced amount had been paid to her till November, 2005 resulting in excess payment of Rs. 27,921/-, hence a sum of Rs. 2000/-would be deducted each month so that recovery can be made regarding the excess amount paid to the petitioner. Again on 10.08.2018, the petitioner received a letter from the State Bank of India’s Centralized Pension Processing Centre, Patna, stating therein that excess pension amounting to Rs. 4,13,958/-has been paid to the petitioner over a period ranging from January, 2008 to the month of July, 2018, hence the same is recoverable, thus, the petitioner was requested to deposit the said amount in the pension account.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent Bank is seeking to recover alleged excess amount of payment made to the petitioner over a period of more than 10 years. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the provisions of the Defence Pension Payment Instructions (Defence PPI), 2013, Rule No. 103.2 whereof is reproduced herein below:-

“103.2 Overpayments of pensions not directed within 12 months of the date of the first erroneous charge should not be recovered from the pensioner’s dues without the orders of the Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (Pensions). If there are any arrears due to the pensioner, the payment of the same may be withheld pending decision for the overpayment made. As soon as an overpayment comes to the notice of the Pension Disbursing Authority he should report the full details of the case to the Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (Pensions) who will decide the case himself, if it lies within his financial powers or he will obtain the orders of the competent authority or the Government of India as the case may be. To avoid hardship to the pensioner, payment for the current period, however, should be continued to the pensioner at the correct rate admissible. On the decision of the case by the competent authority, the orders passed will be communicated to the Pension Disbursing Authority by the Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (Pensions).”

4. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that as per the aforesaid Rule 103.2, no recovery can be made from the petitioner herein without the orders of the Principal Comptroller of Defence Accounts (Pension) since the over payments of pension in the case of the petitioner was not deducted/recovered within 12 months of the first erroneous charge.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents no. 2 to 4, referring to the counter affidavit filed by the Manager, State Bank of India, Centralized Pension P