JUDGMENT :

ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, J.

1. Heard Mr. Ajay Shrivastava, learned counsel, appearing for the appellant. Also heard Ms. Astha Shukla, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the respondent No. 1 as well as Mr. Anand Shukla, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent No. 2.

2. Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 05.08.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP (S) No. 3836/2021, the appellant/ writ petitioner has preferred this appeal.

3. Case of the appellant, as projected in the writ petition, is that the husband of the appellant was working as an Upper Division Teacher and he died-in-harness on 07.01.2013. On his death, the appellant started getting family pension. Allegation is made in the writ petition that without any order and without any show cause notice, the pension amount was reduced and recovery at the rate of Rs. 9,896/- per month was started from June, 2021. On the basis of an application filed under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short the RTI Act), an endorsement was made to the appellant with a calculation-sheet that excess payment of Rs. 2,05,930/- was made to the appellant and accordingly, recovery of excess pension is being made at the rate of Rs. 9,896/- per month. It is also alleged that the respondent No. 2-Bank had “hold the account” as a result of which the appellant was unable to withdraw any amount from her account.

4. It is seen from the calculation-sheet annexed with the writ petition that the same is issued by the Branch Manager of Central Bank of India, Saraipali Branch, who is arrayed as respondent No. 2.

5. The writ petition was filed on 08.07.2021. The case was listed on 05.08.2021 for orders on default. However, ignoring the defaults pointed out by the Registry, the matter was taken up for consideration and disposal, and as noticed above, the same was disposed of on the said date. No return was filed in the writ petition and it would appear that the order was passed on the basis of oral submissions on behalf of the learned counsel for the respondents, more particularly, respondent No. 2.

6. A perusal of the facts recited by the learned Single Judge, which is not disputed in the appeal, would go to show that the appellant was erroneously paid the pension amount of Rs. 29,692/- per month and that the aforesaid amount was payable only upto January 2020 and thereafter, the family pension payable was Rs. 17,815/- per month but the amount of Rs. 29,692/- was continued to be paid to the appellant upto May, 2021 when the mistake was detected. It was also observed that pursuant to the erroneous fixation of pension which was detected, the process for recovery of an amount of Rs. 2,05,930/- was started and accordingly, the Bank had started to recover the amount of Rs.9,896/- per month from the family pension of the appellant.

7. The learned Single Judge, in the impugned order, noted that the petitioner was not granted any opportunity of hearing before the rectification was carried out by the respondent-Bank and that no order of recovery was passed by the respondent-Bank. The learned Single Judge relied on a decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), (2015) 4 SCC 334, and on consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, came to the conclusion that the excess payment was made for the preceding 15 months before recovery action was initiated and there is no challenge that she is entitled to pension of Rs. 29,692/- per month and on considering as above, it was opined that the recovery sought to be made by the respondent-Bank cannot be said to be either iniquitous or arbitrary. However, it was observed that the quantum of recovery sought to be made i.e. Rs. 9,896/- per month is harsh and accordingly, it was ordered that an amount of Rs. 5,000/- per month may be recovered to recover the entire excess amount of Rs. 2,05,930/-. Direction was also issued to the respondent-Bank to give the complete details of the actual pension