Honble Sunil Ambwani, J.—Heard Shri Rahul Asthana, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Ashok Bhatnagar appears for the respondent bank.

2. The petitioner’s husband Shri Moti Lal died in harness while serving on the post of REFG, MECH in the office of the Garrison Engineer, Air Force, Bamrauli on 15.1.1999. He was receiving Rs. 5,800/- as basic pay at the time of his death. The petitioner as his widow was made entitled to family pension w.e.f. 16.1.1999 at the rate of Rs. 2,900/-. The Pension Payment Order provided in Column-4 “class and amount of pension” that the enhanced rate of Rs. 2,900/- will be payable from 16.1.1999 to 15.1.2006 and thereafter from 16.1.2007 the family pension shall be paid at the normal rate of Rs. 1,740/- per month. The petitioner was also made entitled to dearness relief at the rate of 32% on the amount of family pension.

2. The petitioner was receiving family pension through Bank of India, Branch Sulem Sarai, Allahabad from her Saving Account No. 6022 at the rate of Rs. 2,900/- per month with dearness allowance. It is alleged that w.e.f. 31.1.2008 an amount of Rs. 1,610/- only was debited to her account as family pension by the bank and from February onwards upto July, 2008 she received only Rs. 2,337/- per month in her account. In para 12 of the writ petition it is stated by the petitioner that when she visited the bank, she was told that she was to be paid pension at the normal rate only upto 15.1.2006 and that by inadvertent mistake the family pension was paid to her at normal rates till December, 2007. She had received Rs. 54,180/- in excess, which was sought to be recovered from her at Rs. 1,500/- per month and consequently her family pension including dearness allowance was reduced from Rs. 3,837/- to Rs. 2,337/-. The petitioner has challenged the recovery on the ground that excess payment was due to the fault of the Manager. The petitioner did not commit any default or misrepresentation and therefore the recovery of alleged excess payment was illegal and is violative of Art.19 of the Constitution of India. She has further pleaded that her pension could not be reduced without the approval of the Hon’ble President of India and that the entire recovered amount be paid back to her and her pension be restored at the rate on which it was being paid to her.

4. Shri Ashok Bhatnagar, the counsel for the bank would submit that the pension payment order clearly stipulated that the petitioner is entitled to family pension at special rate of Rs. 2,900/- for seven years from 16.1.1999 to 15.1.2006, and thereafter it will be reduced to normal rates at Rs. 1,740/- w.e.f. 16.1.2006. Due to inadvertent mistake of the disbursing clerk of the bank the pension at the rate of Rs. 2,900/- per month and dearness allowance continued to be deposited even after 16.1.2006 and the petitioner continued to draw excess amount. When the mistake was discovered, the amount of Rs. 54,180/- was sought to be recovered, which the petitioner was not entitled to retain. The petitioner submitted a letter to PCDA (Pension) Allahabad on 20.2.2008, which was sent to the bank stating that the bank has stopped payment on account of some recovery. The petitioner was withdrawing the family pension at special rates even after 15.1.2006, on account of a mistake. The petitioner gave in writing on 20.2.2008 signed by her to the PCDA (Pension), Allahabad with reference to PPO No. C/ENG/614/1999 as follows :

“From : Smt. Susheela Kanojia

W/o Late Moti Lal

Jayantipur, Allahabad

To : PCDA (Pension)

Allahabad

PPO No. C/ENG/614/1999

Respected Sir,

1. It is submitted for your kind information that the applicant reported to Bank of India, Sulem Sarai, Alld for getting my family pension on 13 Feb 2008 but the same could not receive and the rep of Bank told that the pension could not pay due to some recovery is due.

2. It is therefore, requested that above facts may please be intimated at the earliest if any recovery is due against the applicant whi