Harish Kumar, J.—Heard Mr. Shardanand Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Abbas Haider, learned counsel for the State Bank of India and Ms. Kanak Verma, learned counsel for the Union of India.

2. The short facts, which led to the filing of the present writ petition, are that the husband of the petitioner, namely, Bhuban Mohan Mishra was initially appointed as Auditor on 17.06.1965; on account of his ailment, he took voluntary retirement on medical ground on 17.10.1998 after completing his qualifying service. On being superannuated, the husband of the petitioner was provided pension and gratuity for which PPO No. C/DAD 66/1999 was issued from the office of the Chief Controller of Defence Accounts (Pension), Allahabad, fixing his pension @ Rs. 3502/- per month w.e.f. 17.10.1998 for life and family pension in favour of the petitioner at enhanced rate @ Rs. 3502/- per month following the date of death of husband of the petitioner for seven years or for a period up to date of which the deceased government servant would have attained the age of 65 years or till death or remarriage, whichever is earlier and thereafter normal family pension @ Rs. 2103/- per month subject to the terms and conditions stipulated.

3. The ill-luck of the petitioner ordained due to the demise of the petitioner’s husband on 27.09.2002. The petitioner submitted the death certificate of her husband upon which the concerned Sri Krishnapuri Branch of the Bank made endorsement about the demise of the petitioner’s husband in the PPO and allowed enhanced pension for seven years from the date of death. The petitioner has been getting regular enhanced pension and thereafter family pension, but all of a sudden, vide letter bearing no. 330 dated 11.01.2019, the petitioner was informed that she has been paid excess payment and, in spite of family pension, regular pension dehors to her entitlement to the tune of Rs. 8,63,388/- has been paid, which is found recoverable by the Bank and to be refunded to the government as excess paid amount belongs to the government. A legal notice has also been served upon the petitioner on behalf of the State Bank of India, Centralized Pension Processing Centre, directing her to refund the excess payment, failing which the same shall be recovered from the account of the petitioner along with other expenses.

4. The petitioner through her advocate apprised the entire aspect of the matter to the Bank Officials and submitted that apart from the incorrect calculation made by the Bank, due to sheer carelessness of the Bank and its employees, alleged excess payment, if any, is made to the petitioner and thus the petitioner cannot be held responsible.

5. In response to the afore-noted reply of the petitioner, the Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India, vide his letter dated 28.06.2019, stated that despite the death of the petitioner’s husband on 27.09.2002, it has not been reported to the Bank, neither by the petitioner nor by her representative; and on the contrary, life certificate of the erstwhile employee has been submitted by the petitioner every year and, in such circumstances, she was being paid regular pension up to December, 2018.

6. In the aforesaid premise, the process of recovery has been commenced and an amount of Rs. 4,400/- w.e.f. January, 2019 is directed to be deducted every month from the family pension of the petitioner.

7. The petitioner being aggrieved by the action of the respondent/Bank and its officials invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a direction upon the respondent/Bank and its officials not to make any recovery and/or compel the petitioner to refund an amount of Rs. 8,63,388/-, which is said to have been paid in excess to her entitlement. The petitioner also sought a direction to refund the recovered amount from her family pension w.e.f. January, 2019 up to date and to make payment of family pension of the petitioner @ Rs. 13,470/- along with D.