IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, J.
Rajendra Prasad, Son of Late Baijnath - Petitioner
Versus
The State Bank of India, through its Chairman and Ors. - Respondents
W.P.(S) No.1804 of 2016 With W.P.(S) No.2229 of 2016
Decided On : 17-02-2024
[RECOVERY] - [PENSION DISBURSEMENT] - [Article 226 of the Constitution of India, C.C.S. Pension Rules, 1972, Right to Information Act, 2005, State of Punjab & Ors. vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Ors.] - [The court discussed the legal framework surrounding the recovery of excess pension payments made to retired employees. It highlighted key provisions from the C.C.S. Pension Rules, 1972, and the Right to Information Act, 2005, emphasizing the principles of natural justice and the necessity of prior notice before recovery. The court interpreted the Supreme Court's ruling in Rafiq Masih's case, establishing that recovery is impermissible in certain circumstances, particularly when no fraud or misrepresentation is involved, and when excess payments were made for a period exceeding five years. The court concluded that the bank, acting as an agent, was entitled to recover the excess payments based on the undertakings provided by the petitioners.]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, retired employees of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, challenged the recovery of excess pension payments made to them without prior notice. They argued that the excess payments were made mistakenly by the bank and that they had not engaged in any fraud or misrepresentation. The petitioners sought to quash the recovery orders issued by the bank, citing the Supreme Court's ruling in Rafiq Masih's case, which protects employees from recovery of excess payments under certain conditions.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the bank acted as an agent in disbursing the pension and that the recovery of excess payments was permissible under the circumstances. It distinguished the case from Rafiq Masih's case, noting that the bank's actions were not governed by an employer-employee relationship, and the petitioners had provided undertakings to refund any excess payments.
Issues: Whether the recovery of excess pension payments from the petitioners was legal and sustainable in the eyes of the law, considering the principles established in the case of State of Punjab & Ors. vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Ors.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the principles laid down in Rafiq Masih's case do not apply when the bank acts merely as an agent for disbursing pension payments. The court emphasized that the absence of misrepresentation or fraud does not preclude recovery if the excess payments were made inadvertently and the petitioners had provided undertakings to repay any excess amounts.
Final Decision: Both writ petitions were dismissed, affirming the legality of the bank's recovery actions.
JUDGMENT :
Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
1. Both these writ petitions are under Article 226 of the Constitution of India whereby and whereunder the following prayers have been made :-
2. Prayer made in W.P.(S) No.1804 of 2016
3. Prayer made in W.P.(S) No.2229 of 2016
4. The brief facts of the case as per the pleading made in the writ petition which are required to be enumerated, read hereunder as :-
Facts relating to W.P.(S) No.1804 of 2016
5. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner joined the Office of Telecom District Manager(T.D.M.), Dumka Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited joined on 14.10.1974 and retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.08.2005 from the post of J.T.O.
6. After superannuation, the Petitioner has been authorised superannuation Pension w.e.f. 01.11.2007 vide P.P.O. No. T.A./Pen/DMK/ 134/J.C.-606 to be disbursed from State Bank of India, Sahebganj Branch.
7. Thereafter, Revised Pension Payment Order conveying Revision of monthly Pension w.e.f. 01.01.2007 in respect of the Petitioner has been issued vide letter No. 648 dated 26.12.2012.
8. It is the further case of the petitioner that monthly Pension by way of crediting lump-sum amount indicating as Pension has been disbursed to the Petitioner through Sahebganj Branch of State Bank of India. From April 2015 the monthly Pension disbursed to the Petitioner was reduced fro
State of Punjab and Ors. vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Ors.
Shyam Babu Verma vs. Union of India
The Supreme Court's guidelines in Rafiq Masih apply to all stakeholders involved in pension payment and receipt, including disbursing banks and family pensioners, ensuring equitable and just recovery....
Point of law: Pension – Recovery of excess amount paid - The substantive right of the petitioners/Bank to recover the money paid in excess to the original applicant in ways other than judicial remedy....
Any amount paid/received without the authority of law can always be recovered barring few exceptions of extreme hardships but not as a matter of right, in such situations law implies an obligation on....
Recoveries from retired employees based on erroneous salary payments are impermissible, emphasizing equitable treatment and judicial discretion in enforcing employee rights.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.