The arbitrary discontinuation of pension payments by the disbursing authority after a significant period and an admitted error may not be permissible under the legal framework.

JUDGMENT

Moushumi Bhattacharya, J. - The petitioner is the widow of an employee who worked under the Government of West Bengal at the time of retirement. The petitioner's husband retired from service on 30.6.2000 and drew a pension of Rs. 2,480/- month from the date of retirement. The petitioner's husband died on 13.10.2002 after which the petitioner informed the Asst. General Manager of the State Bank of India (SBI) about the death of her husband and requested to start family pension in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner was provided with family pension vide Pension Payment Order (PPO) which is part of the records. The petitioner got family pension from 2002 to December, 2021. The family pension was however stopped from January, 2022. The petitioner contacted the respondent bank, SBI pursuant whereto the petitioner, according to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, was compelled to sign an undertaking on 29.1.2022 declaring that the petitioner authorises the Bank to recover any amount paid to the petitioner which the petitioner is not entitled to.

2. The petitioner claims that the petitioner was not put on notice of the sudden stoppage of the family pension from January, 2022 and was not informed of the reason for the same.

3. The petitioner has challenged two impugned letters of SBI dated 15.2.2022 and 18.5.2022 respectively. By the said letters, the petitioner was informed that the petitioner was paid excess pension of Rs. 9,71,184/- on account of wrong reflection of the basic pay of the petitioner's deceased husband. The petitioner was accordingly told that the Bank would recover the excess amount from the petitioner. In both these letters, the SBI admits to an error in calculation on its part. The petitioner seeks quashing of both the letters and for a direction on SBI to pay the family pension due to the petitioner from January, 2022 without any deduction.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relies on State of Punjab vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer); (2015) 4 SCC 334 wherein the Supreme Court held certain instances of recovery by employers to be impermissible in law (Paragraph 18 of the Report). Counsel also relies on a recent decision of the Supreme Court pronounced on 2.5.2022 in Thomas Daniel vs. State of Kerala, Civil Appeal No. 7115 of 2010 which followed the dictum in Rafiq Masih. Counsel submits that SBI discovered its mistake in calculation of the amounts disbursed to the petitioner after more than 15 years from the date on which the petitioner was allowed the disputed quantum of family pension.

5. Learned counsel appearing for SBI relies on several decisions to buttress the Bank's right to recover the excess amount paid to the petitioner. Foremost among these decisions are Chandi Prasad Uniyal vs. State of Uttarakhand; (2012) 8 SCC 417 and High Court of Punjab and Haryana vs. Jagdev Singh; (2016) 14 SCC 267.

Counsel also relies on decisions of Co-ordinate Benches including in Sri Biswabrata Basu vs. State Bank of India, W.P. No. 29901(W) of 2015.

6. The point for adjudication in the present writ petition is whether the respondent State Bank of India can recover the excess payment made to the petitioner on account of family pension by reason of an admitted error on the part of SBI. Notably, SBI was not the employer of the petitioner's deceased husband but is the disbursing authority of the family pension. Paragraph 18 of Rafiq Masih makes it clear that the situations of hardship where recovery would not be permissible in law were restricted between the employer and the employee. This was also the case in Thomas Daniel where the employer was the Accountant General of the State of Kerala and the Supreme Court accordingly followed Rafiq Masih in holding that the recovery of the amount could not be made particularly after 10 years from the date of retirement of the petitioner before the Supreme Court.

7. The issue is hence whether SBI, as the disbursing authority of the family pension, can be br