JUDGMENT :

KULDEEP TIWARI, J.

1. Through instituting the present writ petition, the petitioner impugns the demand notice dated 12.04.2021 (Annexure P-2), whereby the respondent No.2- State Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as the “S.B.I.”), being the pension disbursing authority, has sought to recover the excess payment of family pension from the petitioner.

2. Assailing the impugned demand notice, the principal contention advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is that there was neither any misrepresentation, fraud, deception, nor concealment of material facts on the part of the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner had no role whatsoever in the fixation or calculation of the family pension payable to her. The excess payment, if any, was solely on account of an error committed by the S.B.I. and, therefore, recovery of such excess amount is impermissible in law, particularly when tested on the anvil of equity.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is solely dependent upon the meagre family pension for her sustenance and has no other source of income to survive in the twilight years of her life, especially while grappling with multiple age-related ailments. To lend vigour to his arguments, learned counsel places reliance upon the verdict rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “State of Punjab and Others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Others”, (2015) 4 SCC 334.

4. Conversely, learned counsel for the S.B.I. submits that the verdict rendered in Rafiq Masih’s case (supra) does not come to the rescue of the petitioner, inasmuch as the petitioner had furnished an undertaking authorizing the S.B.I. to recover any excess amount credited to her account. A copy of the undertaking dated 24.03.2005 has been annexed as Annexure R-2/1.

5. Placing reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “High Court of Punjab and Haryana and Others Vs. Jagdev Singh”, 2016 (4) SCT 286 SC, learned counsel for the S.B.I. contends that the petitioner was clearly placed on notice that any payment found to have been made in excess is required to be refunded. It is further argued that the petitioner has not challenged the P.P.O. dated 23.06.1999 (Annexure P-1), which explicitly sets out the manner of fixation of pension and family pension.

6. Continuing his submissions, learned counsel for the S.B.I. asserts that there exists no employer-employee relationship between the S.B.I. and the petitioner, rather, the petitioner is merely a customer of the S.B.I. Consequently, any excess pension paid is liable to be refunded by the petitioner. In support of his arguments, he lays much emphasis on the verdict rendered by this Court in LPA No.874 of 2014, titled as “Balbir Singh Vs. State of Haryana and Others”, wherein the action of the bank in ordering/initiating recovery on account of excess amount having been paid has been upheld.

7. Before embarking upon the process of gauging the validity of the impugned demand notice, and penning down a verdict upon the present writ petition, it is deemed apt to initially capture a concise and compendious factual backdrop of the case.

8. The husband of the petitioner, late Mr. Kesar Singh, was serving as Special Secretary of this Court and took voluntary retirement w.e.f. 04.05.1999. Upon his retirement, his pension was fixed at Rs.5,969/- per month w.e.f. 05.05.1999 vide P.P.O. No. 708559902793 dated 23.06.1999 (Annexure P-1). The P.P.O. stipulated that in the event of death of the retiree, family pension of Rs.5969/- per month may be paid to Paramjit Kaur (petitioner/spouse of the retiree) from the day following the date of death till the expiry of 7 years or the completion of 65 years of age, had the retiree survived, whichever is earlier, and thereafter at the reduced rate of Rs.4752/- per month. The S.B.I., being the designated pension disbursing authority, was responsible for disbursement of pension/family pension. Although the petitioner was entitled to enha