The excess amount paid to an employee may not be recoverable if it was not due to misstatement or fraud on the part of the employee, as established in State of Punjab & Ors. v. Rafiq Masih.

JUDGMENT

Rekha Borana, J. - The present writ petition has been filed aggrieved of the order dated 11.08.2016, whereby the petitioner was directed to deposit the excess amount paid to her qua her family pension.

2. The brief facts of the case are as under:-

After the death of the husband of the petitioner who was a government employee, family pension order was issued in her favour by the competent authority vide order dated 04.06.2005. After 8 years of the issuance of the said order, a letter dated 27.07.2016 was served on the petitioner, wherein it was mentioned that an amount of Rs. 5,68,626/- had been paid excess to the petitioner. Vide notice dated 11.08.2016, the respondent - Bank directed the petitioner to deposit the excess amount in a single transaction.

3. It is relevant to note here that after the receipt of the communication dated 27.07.2016, the petitioner, in all good faith, requested the respondent - Bank not to recover the excess amount in lump sum and to deduct the same in installments. In pursuance to the request of the petitioner, one third of the pension payable was started to be deducted by the bank per month. But vide communication dated 05.01.2017, it was informed by the bank that the remaining amount is to be paid in lump sum and so the same be deposited by the petitioner with the bank. Aggrieved against the same, the present writ petition has been filed.

4. It has been argued by the counsel for the petitioner that no recovery qua the excess payment made to the petitioner is recoverable from her, in view of the ratio as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Punjab & Ors. v. Rafiq Masih reported in 2015 (4) SCC 334.

5. Counsel argued that the excess payment was not made to the petitioner because of any miscommunication, misstatement, fraud or mistake on part of the petitioner/employee. The excess amount, if any, had been paid because of a miscalculation on part of the bank or the State for which the petitioner cannot be held to be liable and consequently, the excess amount cannot be held to be recoverable from her. Counsel submitted that the communication/undertaking given by the petitioner was in all good faith and in ignorance of the law. He submitted that despite the said undertaking being furnished by the petitioner, she is not liable to the recovery as alleged against her, rather she is entitled to the refund of the excess amount already recovered from her. Beside the Rafiq Masih's case (supra), counsel also relied upon the judgment passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5553/2014; Mukan Singh Rajpurohit v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. decided on 12.04.2017.

6. Per contra, counsel for the State argued that the PPO issued in favour of the petitioner by the Pension Department specifically mentioned that an amount of Rs. 9,300/- was to be paid up to 28.03.2012 and thereafter, Rs. 5,580/- per month was to be paid. It has been argued by the counsel that there was no role of the State Authorities in the said excess payment being made to the petitioner. It was only the bank which has issued the excess payment to the petitioner. For the purpose, counsel relied on the documents placed on record, whereby, the PPO and the revised PPO had been issued specifically mentioning the fact. It is the submission of the counsel for the State that the amount is first paid to the employee by the bank and then the same is refunded by the State to the bank after the relevant bill being submitted by the bank to the State. Therefore, the fault, if any, in excess of payment has been committed by the bank and not by the State Authorities. Counsel therefore argued that even if the petitioner is held to be entitled for refund of the amount already recovered, the sole liability should be of the bank only.

7. Counsel relied upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of High Court of Punjab and Haryana & Ors. v. Jagdev Singh reported in 2016 (14) SCC 267.

8. Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank argued that in the pres