The court balanced the legal obligation of the petitioner's declaration with the petitioner's financial circumstances by directing a reduced recovery rate of 20% of the family pension.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner has filed the instant under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following relief (S) :-

“a. This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or suitable direction tot he respondents for quashing the impugned recovery of Rs.7,91,560/- issued by the respondent No.3.

b. This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/direction to the respondent No.3 for grant of consequential reliefs of deductions.

c. Any other relief as the Hon’ble Court may be deemed fit and proper with cost of petition.”

2. Brief facts of the case, as projected by the petitioner, are that the petitioner's husband late Shankar Singh Thakur was working on the post of Assistant Teacher at Govt. Middle School, Arang and he died in harness on 23/03/2005 leaving behind the petitioner and 7 daughters namely Savitri Singh 30 years, Sangita Singh 27 years, Vijeta Singh 23 years, Durgeshwari Singh 21 years, Subhashini Singh 20 years, Jyoti Singh 18 years & Pooja Singh 15 years. After the death of petitioner’s husband, his elder daughter namely Savitri Singh got the compassionate appointment on the post of Shiksha Karmi - Grade – III and now she has been married. The petitioner received the retiral benefits/dues (Annexure P/1) in accordance with the rules and is getting family pension from 2005. According to the petitioner, the Respondent No.3 orally informed the petitioner in the month of November, 2017 that by mistake the petitioner is being given excess pension than the fixed pension, therefore, the Respondent No. 03 has started to deduct the pension Rs.4,000/- against the total recoverable amount of Rs.7,91,560/- without any prior letter/notice. The petitioner submitted a letter to the Senior Treasury Officer, District Raipur requesting that she is not getting pension since three months. The Respondent No. 03 has informed the petitioner that in place of the petitioner, some other woman namely Suhana is operating her account and her name is missing, however, the amount of pension was being deposited in the account of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, she did not get any pension from the month of November, 2017 to January, 2018 and in the month of February, March, April, 2018 & May, 2018, she received Rs.10,163/- and thereafter, Respondent No. 03 has started deducting Rs.4,000/- per month from the aforesaid amount. Now the petitioner is only getting pension of Rs.6,163/- after deduction of Rs. 4,000/-. The petitioner made complaint (Annexure P/2) to the Respondent No. 02 towards excess payment of pension and requested not to recover the excess payment on the ground that she is not in a position to pay the excess amount and the excess payment was made to her by mistake of the Respondent No. 03. The Respondent No. 02 has forwarded the application of the petitioner by a letter, dated 12/02/2018 (Annexure P/3). Despite the request of the petitioner to provide the order of recovery, the same has not been provided to her and only a copy of chart (Annexure P/4) showing calculation of the recovery amount has been supplied. The petitioner is an illiterate person and she is looking after 06 daughters only on the basis of Family Pension. Therefore, the petitioner is not in a position to pay the excess amount Rs.7,91,560/- to the Respondent No. 03. If the Respondent No. 03 is allowed to deduct the amount of Rs.4,000/- from the petitioner, the petitioner would suffer irreparable loss and she will face difficulty in maintaining her big family. Hence, this petition by the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of Respondent No.3 is arbitrary and contrary to the law and provisions, hence, the recovery from family pension is bad in law. The excess payment in pension is on the fault of Respondent No.3 and from the very beginning the petitioner was getting actual pension, therefore, the recovery from pension is arbitrary, illegal and the same is liable to be quashed.

4