JUDGMENT :

DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties through V.C.

2. The instant application has been preferred on behalf of the petitioner praying therein the following reliefs:-

“(i) For issuance of an appropriate writs, orders and/or directions, particularly a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondent-authorities not to recover any amount from the family pension payable to the petitioner herein.

(ii) For issuance of an appropriate writs, orders and/or directions, particularly a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondent-authorities to refund the amount already recovered from the saving bank account of the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 38,980/-.

(iii) For issuance of an appropriate writs, orders and/or directions, restraining the respondent from making any recovery from the family pension account of the petitioner standing in her name at Allahabad Bank, Lalpur, Ranchi.”

3. The facts of the case lie in narrow compass. The husband of the petitioner was working in Road Construction Department as an Assistant and had retired on 01.02.1996 and he was getting his pension and other admissible benefits vide P.P.O. No. 226508. On 08.04.2001 the husband of the petitioner died and thereafter, the petitioner was getting family pension to the tune of Rs. 12,898/- till December, 2008 when the respondent-Bank suo motu without giving any notice or show cause started disbursing amount of Rs. 9,745/- towards the pension account. Due to the aforesaid reason petitioner made an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005, seeking information as to why her pension has been slashed down without assigning any reason. Pursuant to that vide letter dated 16.08.2010 (Annexure-4 to the writ application) bank informed the petitioner that she was entitled for pension to the tune of Rs. 9,745/- only and due to inadvertence she was getting Rs. 12,898/- as such, a total sum of Rs. 2,19,193/- excess payment has been given to her and the same is being recovered. The said letter further indicates that Rs. 1,80,213/- has to be recovered in 51 installments at the rate of Rs. 3500/- per month and Rs. 1713/- in the 52nd installment. At this stage, it is pertinent to mention here that no show cause or any short of notice was ever given to the petitioner before the process of recovery was started by the respondent-Bank.

4. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 5-The Accountant General Bihar and Jharkhand in which it has been stated that office of answering respondent has already authorized pensionary benefits as per proper sanction given by the department and same was authorized in favour of the writ petitioner and petitioner’s husband under PPO No. 226508. Mr. Sudarshan Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent no. 5 submits that this answering respondent has not made any instruction regarding recovery of family pension of the petitioner. He further submits that it appears from the petition that the bank has detected some excess payment made to the petitioner which was recovered from petitioner which is related to the bank.

5. A counter affidavit has also been filed by the respondent No. 3-The State of Jharkhand in which it has been categorically stated that the Road Construction Department Government of Jharkhand is not responsible for recovery of money from the family pension of the petitioner.

6. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent-Bank in which it has been mentioned inter-alia that due to the excess amount paid to the petitioner the bank is duty bond to realise the same in accordance with law. It is pertinent to mention here that the bank has also filed three supplementary affidavits in support of its stand that the bank has not committed any error in recovering the amount from the petitioner. The respondent-Bank in the third supplementary affidavit has stated inter-alia that inadvertently excess family pension amounting to Rs. 2,19,193/- has been paid