Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
SUBRATA TALUKDAR, KRISHNA RAO, SUPRATIM BHATTACHARYA, JJ.
Renuka Sarkar – Petitioner
Versus
The State of West Bengal and Others – Respondents
WPA No. 10545 of 2020, FMA No. 511 of 2021, IA No. CAN 1 of 2020 (Old No. CAN 2531 of 2020)
Decided On : 30-06-2023
PENSION RECOVERY - BANK'S ROLE - APPLICABILITY OF RAFIQ MASIH GUIDELINES - INTERPRETATION OF SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT: 1. The Supreme Court's decision in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (2015) 4 SCC 334, which sets out criteria for recovery of excess pension payments, applies not only to employer-employee relationships but also to disbursing banks and family pension recipients. 2. The guidelines in Rafiq Masih encompass all stakeholders involved in pension payment and receipt, including the bank, pensioners, and family pensioners. 3. In cases of excess pension payments, banks must follow the principles laid down in Rafiq Masih, particularly Paragraph 18, to ensure equitable and just recovery processes.
Fact of the Case:
1. Renuka Sarkar, a retired Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, received excess pension payments due to errors in calculating dearness allowance and basic amount. 2. The respondent bank, State Bank of India, initiated recovery of the excess amount, deducting 1/3rd of her gross pension. 3. Jharna Chakraborty, wife of a deceased State Government employee, received excess family pension due to miscalculation of basic pay. 4. The bank stopped her family pension and sought recovery of the excess amount. 5. Both pensioners challenged the recovery actions in separate writ petitions, raising the issue of whether Rafiq Masih guidelines apply to banks.
Finding of the Court:
1. The ratio decidendi of Rafiq Masih encompasses employers, disbursing banks, employees/pensioners, and their family members. 2. The bank's role as a disbursing authority and the family members' receipt of family pension fall within the ambit of Rafiq Masih's judgment. 3. The court emphasized the need for equity and justice in pension recovery, considering the hardships faced by pensioners and their families.
Issues: 1. Whether the guidelines laid down in Rafiq Masih apply to banks, being the disbursing authorities of pension. 2. Whether the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Single Bench in WPA 22759 (W) of 2019 is in accordance with law.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Supreme Court's judgment in Rafiq Masih sets out comprehensive guidelines for recovery of excess pension payments, considering factors such as the employee's class, retirement status, duration of excess payment, and potential hardship. 2. The guidelines aim to strike a balance between the employer's right to recover and the employee's right to livelihood and dignity. 3. The court held that the principles enunciated in Rafiq Masih apply not only to employer-employee relationships but also to banks and family pensioners, ensuring equitable and just recovery processes for all stakeholders involved in pension payment and receipt.
Final Decision: 1. The court answered the reference questions by confirming that banks fall within the ambit of Rafiq Masih guidelines and must follow the principles laid down therein for recovery of excess pension payments. 2. In the appeal arising from the Single Bench judgment, the court directed the bank to pass a reasoned order regarding recovery of excess pension, considering the specific facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the hardship faced by the appellant/writ petitioner.
JUDGMENT :
SUPRATIM BHATTACHARYA, J.
1. The instant lis has arisen because of reference being made in WPA 10545 of 2020 and WPA 18830 of 2022 and an appeal being preferred against the Judgment and order passed by an Hon’ble Single Bench in writ petition No. 22759 (W) of 2019 dated 19.02.2020.
2. In the WPA 10545 of 2020 excess amount has been paid to the petitioner namely Renuka Sarkar who was posted as Assistant Commercial Tax Officer under Bengal circle being an employee of the Government of West Bengal. She has retired from service on 30.06.2012. Her pension was being credited in her account maintained with the respondent State Bank of India, Sarsuna Branch. It is the contention of the respondent bank that since July 2012 to December 2015 excess amount has been calculated and paid due to mistake in assessing the dearness allowance while from January 2016 to January 2019 excess amount has been paid because of mistake in calculation in the basic amount. The total excess amount paid to her as pension amounts to Rs. 5,22,830/-. By a letter dated 30.8.2019 the respondent bank informed the pension holder as regards to the fact of excess payment made. She was also informed that in terms of circular a monthly deduction of Rs. 6,887/-has been made in respect of pension account and the said amount of deduction is 1/3rd of the gross pension amount. The writ petitioner preferred the said writ petition before the Hon’ble Court being aggrieved by the fact of recovery of the said excess amount. After the exchange of affidavits in the said writ petition the Hon’ble Bench vide order dated 07.07.2022 was pleased to dispose of the matter and has been pleased to send the record along with the judgment to be placed before the Hon’ble the Chief Justice for constitution of larger bench for examination of the following issue:
3. In the second writ petition being WPA 18830 of 2022 which has been referred, the writ petitioner namely Jharna Chakraborty is the wife of Suman Chandra Chakraborty since deceased, who was an employee of the State Government. The employee retired on 30.6.2000 and had been obtaining pension till his expiry on 13.10.2002. After the intimation of death of the employee since deceased on 28.10.2002, the petitioner started to receive family pension and the pension account is with the State Bank of India. The family pension continued till December 2021 and thereafter from January 2022 the said family pension was stopped. The bank authority informed the petitioner that due to miscalculation excess of payment amounting Rs. 9,71,184/-has been made to the petitioner during the period 06.06.2007 to 31.12.2021. The writ petitioner thereafter on 29.01.2022 had gone to the bank where she had to sign on a form being compelled, otherwise her survival was at stake. The respondent bank thereafter on 15.02.2022 requested the writ petitioner to repay the excess amount. It was also intimated that such excess is on account of wrong calculation of the basic pay which has crept in inadvertently. The bank authority decided that the pension amount is to be Rs. 9410/-. The bank authority started deducting Rs. 9,135/-towards recovery and writ petitioner is being credited the paltry amount of Rs. 275/-as pension in her account. Being aggrieved by such decision of the bank authority the said petitioner preferred a writ petition. On 08.12.2022 an Hon’ble Single Bench of this Court directed the respondent bank authority to pay family pension to the petitioner at the rate calculated by the SBI every month as was being paid from October 2002 till December 2021. The respondent bank is now crediting Rs. 6534/-as family pension and deducting Rs. 3,135/-towards recovery
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....
The impermissibility of recovery in certain situations and the iniquitous nature of recovery after a long period.
Recoveries from pensioners are permissible only under strict guidelines to prevent hardship, emphasizing protection for retired employees against unjust financial demands.
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
