IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
ANANYA BANDYOPADHYAY, J.
Abhoycharan Basu - Appellant
Vs.
Paschim Banga Gramin Bank & Ors. - Respondent
WPA 9971 of 2020
Decided On : 28-08-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of the pension claim (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. arguments for pension entitlement and claim of unauthorized deduction (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 3. court's evaluation of regulatory compliance (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 4. judicial discretion on recovery of excess payment (Para 25 , 26 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36) |
| 5. final ruling and dismissal of the writ petition (Para 38 , 39) |
JUDGMENT :
ANANYA BANDYOPADHYAY, J.
1. The petitioner had prayed for a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondent Bank to refund the amount of Rs 1,27,870/- (Rupees One Lakh, Twenty Seven Thousand, Eight Hundred and Seventy only) which was deducted by the Respondent Bank from the SB account of the petitioner and his wife bearing No. 11210110009836.
2. The petitioner was a retired officer, Scale-1 (OJM-1), of the Paschim Banga Gramin Bank (hereinafter referred to as ‘Respondent Bank’). On attaining the age of 60 he retired from his service on November 30, 2014 while he was an Assistant Manager of Banamalinagar Branch, District- Howrah. He had been receiving his pension on and from April 1, 2018.
3. The Respondent Bank issued a notice on December 14, 2018 that as per an order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on April 25, 2018 in SLP (C) 39288/2012, the Officers/Employees, retirees and family members of the deceased employees/officers of the Respondent Bank were eligible to opt for pensions and application for the same should be submitted in writing within April 3, 2019 in order for the applicants to become eligible for the pension as per the notification at the concerned Regional Office where they had last worked. The Petitioner exercised his option for becoming a member of the Paschim Banga Gramin Bank (Employees) Pension Fund on January 18, 2019. His Pension Payment Order was issued on April 17, 2019 and he was paid his pension for the month of February 2019 and March 2019 to the joint account of the petitioner and his wife. The Petitioner had also received Rs 2,60,337.26 (Rupees Two Lakhs, Sixty Thousand, Three Hundred and Thirty Seven; and Twenty Six Paisa Only) on June 28, 2019 and Rs 21,820 (Rupees Twenty One Thousand, Eight Hundred and Twenty Only) on July 3, 2019 for the period from April 1, 2018 to January 1, 2019.
4. On April 17, 2019, the Paschim Banga Gramin Bank (Employees) Pension Fund Trust sanctioned his application for Pension and credited Rs 712303.20 to his PBGB SB bank account No. 11210110009836 on November 20, 2019.
5. However, on November 20, 2019, a lump amount of Rs 1,27,870/- (Rupees One Lakh, Twenty Seven Thousand, Eight Hundred and Seventy only) was deducted from his PBGB SB bank account No. 11210110009836 on the pretext of recovery. He was not informed in writing of the reason for the deduction.
6. On December 9, 2019 the Petitioner wrote an letter with regards to the deducted amount to the Respondent Bank. Vide a letter dated December 11, 2019, the Chief Manager, PAD replied stating that there was no anomaly in the payment of pension or commutation and recovery of excess payment. The petitioner sent another communication on August, 25, 2020 with regards to the deducted amount. On September 4, 2020, the General Manager PBGB replied through email affirming that Rs 1,27,870/- (Rupees One Lakh, Twenty Seven Thousand, Eight Hundred and Seventy only) was recovered, the amount was credited to Paschim Banga Gramin Bank (Employees) Pension Fund, recovery of excess pension was paid on account of commutation, and the voucher was an internal document and the passbook entry was the replica of voucher which served the purpose. The petitioners wrote another email on September,14 2020 with regards to the deducted amount, however they received no reply from the respondent bank.
7. The petitioner has submitted that he has been deprived of Rs 1,27,870/- (Rupees One Lakh, Twenty Seven Thousand, Eight Hundred and Seventy only). The transfer of the amount from his bank ac
State of Punjab vs. Rafiq Masih
Syed Abdul Qadir v. State of Bihar
Unauthorized deductions from a pensioner's account without valid consent amount to a violation of principles of natural justice under Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution.
Recoveries from pensioners are permissible only under strict guidelines to prevent hardship, emphasizing protection for retired employees against unjust financial demands.
Recovery of excess payments from retired employees is impermissible without adherence to natural justice, especially when payments were made for an extended period without notice.
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....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.