Purnendu Singh, J. – Heard Mr. Shivendra Kishore, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Ganesh Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners; Mr. Arbind Kumar, learned AC to learned GP-17 appearing on behalf of the State and Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the State Bank of India.

2. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that petitioners are aggrieved by communication dated 16.01.2023 by which they have been informed that excess payment made to the petitioners are required to be recovered from their family pension without giving any opportunity of hearing and without seeking any show cause. Pursuant to the said notice, the Bank has started to recover Rs. 3000/- per month from the family pension with effect from December, 2022. The deceased employee was Assistant Teacher and had died in harness on 03.05.2002.

3. Learned counsel submitted that the above communication which is in the form of the order is against the direction and circular of the Reserve Bank of India. The Reserve Bank of India time and again has issued that before penalizing any pensioner, notices are required to be issued even considering the fact that the petitioners have undertaken at the time of agreement with the bank while their pension account was being opened with the bank. He further submitted that no recovery could be made from the family pension of petitioners especially after a lapse of long time, even in such cases where the recovery is on account of incorrect pay fixation and promotion which was given to the deceased employee.

4. Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Bank submitted that the bank has acted as per the direction of the Treasury Officer.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Accountant General, Bihar informs this Court that after receiving the sanction letter to reduce the pension, the steps were taken to issue fresh P.P.O. in accordance with law.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and the facts which have emerged in this case on the basis of the pleadings made by the petitioners in the writ petition. The petitioner no.1 is the wife of deceased employee namely, Lal Babu Singh, who had expired on 03.05.2002 while he was in service. The petitioner no.2 is the daughter born out of matrimonial relationship of the deceased wife. The petitioners were getting family pension for nearly two decades after the death of the deceased employee. Rajkunwari Devi is the first wife and out of wedlock they have one married daughter namely, Anu Kumari. There are two daughters namely, Guriya Kumari and Khusboo Kumari from the second wife. The family pension of Rs. 13,420/- has been credited into the joint account of the petitioners every month till November, 2022. The family pension of petitioners was reduced to Rs. 6,722/- from the month of December, 2022 and thereafter at the same rate the family pension was being credited every month till the date of filing of present writ petition. Petitioners are aggrieved by the reduction of family pension which has been done without disclosing any reason. A communication was made by the State Bank of India DRM Branch, Khagaul vide Letter dated 16.01.2023 that since the petitioners have given undertaking for such recovery and the recovered amount has been deposited in the Government treasury. The bank record of the petitioners also reveals that nearly Rs. 1,00,000/- has been recovered on account of excess pension having been paid to the petitioners.

7. Certain amount on account of arrears of pension for the period May 2002 till August, 2015 was incorrectly calculated by the District Programme Officer (Establishment), Patna and was credited in the joint account of the petitioners on 28.09.2017. It is also admitted that the first wife had died on 04.02.2022 and her daughter namely, Anu Kumari has already been married.

8. The law regarding recovery of excess payment made to an employee is well settled as on date. The