Back
MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA
Jharna Chakraborty – Appellant
Versus
State Bank Of India – Respondent
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 J
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.
The impermissibility of recovery in certain situations and the iniquitous nature of recovery after a long period.
Recovery of excess pension payments may be impermissible in certain situations, especially when it would be harsh or prejudicial to the beneficiary's survival.
The Supreme Court's guidelines in Rafiq Masih apply to all stakeholders involved in pension payment and receipt, including disbursing banks and family pensioners, ensuring equitable and just recovery....
Recoveries from pensioners are permissible only under strict guidelines to prevent hardship, emphasizing protection for retired employees against unjust financial demands.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that no recovery can be made from a retired employee or the legal heirs of the retired employee, or with regard to an amount which was being paid f....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
