IMPORTANT POINT
Recovery of excess pension amount after a long period without informing the pensioner and causing hardship is not sustainable and breaches the agreement with the Union of India.

JUDGMENT :

PURNENDU SINGH, J.

1. Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar Ghosarvey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Mritunjay Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents and Ms. Punam Kumari Singh, learned counsel appearing for the Union of India.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner has sought quashing of order dated 03.10.2015 passed by the Senior Accounts Officer, PAO, CRPF, MHA, New Delhi and the entire calculation chart (Annexure 7 series) prepared for the purpose of deduction of Rs. 5,96,339/- from the pension amount of the petitioner, allegedly paid in excess to the petitioner by the respondent bank, along with other prayers.

3. The petitioner had retired from the post of S.I./G.D. on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.07.2004. The pension of the petitioner was fixed on the basis of the last pay drawn by him at Rs. 9,166.25/-. The pension of the petitioner has been fixed on the pay scale of Rs. 5500-175-9000/- and after 5th CPC comes in the corresponding pay scale of Rs. 9300-34800/- with grade pay of Rs. 4,200/- from 1.1.2006 but the grade pay has been only shown and the mandatory benefit has not bee given to the petitioner. After the 6th Pay Revision, the pension of the petitioner was further revised and fixed at Rs. 10,305/- along with dearness allowance, the commuted amount of pension was credited in the passbook of the petitioner after the revision of pension, but after the calculation of the pension by the respondent bank, less amount was being credited in the account of the petitioner, as allegedly the bank realized that due to mistake on their part, the excess pension amount had been credited in the account of the petitioner.

4. The bank has come with two figures of recovery amount firstly Rs. 5,96,339/- as on 30.5.2016 and secondly Rs. 5,77,220/- as on 12.12.2016, therefore, it appears that bank authorities themselves are in confusion as to how much amount should be recovered from the petitioner and from which period, though the recovery has been started from 30.07.2016.

5. That the petitioner who is an old person and he is suffering from various diseases and due to paucity of money the proper treatment could not be possible to the petitioner and despite the request the respondent bank authority continue to making recovery from the pension amount without any information to the petitioner which is unfair, improper and justify in the eye of law at this belated stage.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that even though the bank had taken an undertaking on 26.10.2004 from the petitioner to the effect that in case of any excess pension payment, the bank has right to adjust/recover the excess amount from the pension amount of the petitioner but in such condition, the petitioner must have been informed by the bank about the said excess payment made to him and such recovery. In absence of any communication to petitioner giving reasons for recovery and without giving opportunity to him in that regard, the action of the bank in realizing the total amount, which according to the bank is Rs. 5,96,339/- is penal in nature. However, as per the petitioner’s own calculation based on statement of passbook, the excess amount, in fact, which has been recovered from the account of the petitioner in total is Rs. 6,24,000/-.

7. The petitioner has substantiated his claim by referring to the pass book entries to show that no extra amount of the pension has been credited in the account of the petitioner. The petitioner submitted that action of the respondent bank is illegal and not in accordance with law for this reason that without giving any information and giving any opportunity to accept his explanation that the entries made in the pass book of the petitioner issued by the respondent bank (Punjab National Bank of Koilwar Branch) reveals that no excess amount was paid into account of the petitioner.

8. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner wa