Back
2024 Supreme(Chh) 107
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
ARVIND SINGH CHANDEL, J.
Vidya Dhar Bajpai, son of Late Leela Dhar Bajpai - Petitioner
Versus
State Bank of India, through Chief General Manager, Pension, Provident Fund & Gratuity Department and Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition (S) No.2556 of 2020
Decided On : 05-02-2024
For the Petitioner: Shri Anand Shukla.
For the Respondents: Shri P.R. Patankar.
Recovery of excess payment from a pensioner must be in accordance with relevant rules and with consideration of waiver if there is no misrepresentation of facts by the pensioner.
Headnote:
Recovery - Pension Disbursement - Rule 66 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021 - State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), (2015) 4 SCC 334 - Thomas Daniel v. State of Kerala, AIR 2022 SC 2153 - Writ Petition (C) No.767 of 2019 (Prabhash Chandra Sardar v. State Bank of India)
Fact of the Case:
The Petitioner, a retired employee of the State Bank of India, had his STDR amount frozen and savings account held by the bank due to an excess payment of pension. The bank recovered the excess amount without consent and broke the Petitioner's premature FDR.
Finding of the Court:
The recovery of the excess payment by the bank was held to be void and arbitrary. The court directed the bank to deposit the entire deducted amount with interest in the Petitioner's savings bank account, and to consider waiving off the recovery in consultation with the Ministry of Finance.
Issues: Arbitrariness of the bank's actions, violation of natural justice, applicability of relevant rules and legal precedents.
Ratio Decidendi: The recovery of excess payment from a pensioner must be in accordance with relevant rules and with consideration of waiver if there is no misrepresentation of facts by the pensioner.
Final Decision: The recovery was held to be void, and the bank was directed to deposit the entire deducted amount with interest in the Petitioner's savings bank account. The bank was also directed to consider waiving off the recovery in accordance with the relevant rules and law.
ORDER :
1. The instant petition has been moved by the Petitioner seeking following reliefs:
“10.1) That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the order dated 18.05.2020 & 01.06.2020 (ANNEXURE P-1) in the interest of justice.
10.2) That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/direction to respondent authorities to reimburse the recovered amount of the petitioner and recreate his Fixed Deposit.
10.3) That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records of the case.
10.4) That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to award cost.
10.5) Any other relief or relief(s) which this Hon’ble Court may think proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted.”
2. Facts of the case, in short, are that the Petitioner was appointed as a Clerk-cum-Typist in the State Bank of India/Respondents on 16.8.1978 and after completion of his service tenure he retired from service on 31.12.2014. On 19.5.2020, the Petitioner discovered that his STDR amount was frozen by the State Bank of India (henceforth ‘the Bank’) and hold on his savings account had been removed. On 22.5.2020, the Petitioner, vide Annexure P3, made a communication to the State Bank of India/Respondents mentioning that he had not requested freezing or holding of any of his accounts and had also not received information regarding any excess payment to him. In response, vide letter dated 21.5.2020, the Bank informed that the action was not for a recovery, rather the action was for holding his account. Vide letter dated 1.6.2020, it was informed by the Bank that an excess payment of Rs.9,45,011 had been made to the Petitioner and as per the direction issued by Respondent 2 this amount has to be recovered from the Petitioner. The Bank provided the Petitioner with contact number of the concerned department for clarification also. The Petitioner tried to contact the concerned, but, did not get any response. Meanwhile, without providing a due opportunity and without obtaining any consent from the Petitioner the premature FDR of the Petitioner was broken by the Respondent/Bank on 3.6.2020 and the amount was credited into his savings bank account and thereafter the amount of excess payment of Rs.9,45,011 was debited from the savings bank account of the Petitioner and the same was credited into the account of Respondent 2. Hence, the instant petition.
3. Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that the action of the Respondents is arbitrary and violates the principle of natural justice. The Respondent/Bank without serving any show cause notice or obtaining any consent from the Petitioner his premature FDR was broken by the Respondent/Bank and the amount was credited into his savings bank account and the amount of excess payment of Rs.9,45,011 was debited from his savings account and was credited into the account of Respondent 2. It was further submitted by the Learned Counsel that the Petitioner has neither committed any fraud nor had misappropriated any money. The excess amount was given to the Petitioner by the Bank authorities due to their own mistake. The case of the Petitioner is squarely covered by a judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), (2015) 4 SCC 334, as the Petitioner herein is a retired employee of the Bank and recovery is being made by the Bank after his retirement on account of excess payment of pension which is not permissible. Reliance was also placed on Thomas Daniel v. State of Kerala, AIR 2022 SC 2153 as also on a judgment dated 25.4.2019 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition (C) No.767 of 2019 (Prabhash Chandra Sardar v. State Bank of India).
4. Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents/State Bank of India submitted that consequent on revision of pension on account of 10th bipartite agreement the basic pension of the Petitioner was revised from Rs.14,340 to Rs.23,445 which was to be paid along with dearness
