1. With consent, heard finally.

Petitioner claims to be widow of one Narendra Singh Gehlot who was working in the Higher Education Department of the State Government. She was getting pension through the fifth respondent Bank in pursuance to the letter dated 29.12.1990 (Annexure A-I) issued by the District Treasury Officer, Ratlam on the basis of Pension Payment Order No. PA3/F/7065.

2. The fifth respondent State Bank of Indore vide order dated 17.1.2007 (Annexure A-2) informed the petitioner that she ho' been paid excess pension as she should have been paid family pension at the rate of Rs. 1275/- per month, whereas she wrongly been paid pension at the rate of Rs: 1483/- per month, hence a recovery of Rs. 34,468/- at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per month was ordered from her future pension.

3. Feeling aggrieved by the said letter/order dated 17.1.2007 (Annexure A2) the petitioner had approached this Court by filing a Writ Petition No. 4515/ 2008 (S). The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 18.12.2008 directing the respondent to consider and decide the petitioner's grievance and till her representation is decided the interim order passed on 4.9.2008 staying the further recovery was directed to remain in force.

4. In pursuance to the directions given by this Court on 18.12.2008 in W.P.No. 4518/2008 (S) the fifth respondent Bank considered the petitioner's representation (Annexure A-5) and rejected the same vide order dated 23.5.2009 (Annexure A-8). Aggrieved the petitioner has filed this petition.

5. The case of the petitioner is that she was being paid the pension in terms of the letter dated 29.12.1990 (Annexure A-I) and in the circumstances no recovery could have been ordered from the pension amount payable to her. It has been further stated that in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Sahibram v. State of Haryana, (1994) 2 SCC 52 and in case of Shyambabu Verma v. Union of India, (1994) 2 SCC 521, and also in the light of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dr. N.C. Jain v. District Treasury Officer and others, Writ Appeal No. 163/2006 (5), the recovery of excess payment of Rs. 34,468/- at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per month as has been ordered by the fifth respondent cannot be sustained.

6. Shri S.S. Garg, learned Govt. Advocate and Jhri R.C. Singhal, learned counsel for the respondent No.5 Bank on the other hand justified the impugned recovery. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the respondent that the Pension Payment Order No. PA3/F/7065 (Annexure R-I) which has been issued in favoour of the petitioner is containing a specific mention that the amount of monthly pension payable to the petitioner shall be at the rate of Rs. 480/- per month plus relief w.e.f. 19.10.1989 to 18.10.1996 and thereafter at the rate of Rs. 375/- per month plus relief. In the circumstances according to the respondent in view of the Pension Payment Order (Annexure R-I) amount of Rs. 480/- per month plus relief as mentioned in the letter dated 29.12.1990 (Annexure A-I) was payable to the petitioner only upto 18.10.1996 and thereafter she was to be' paid at the rate M.Rs. 375/- per month plus relief. However, the fifth respondent erroneously continued to pay Rs. 480/- per month plus relief even after 18.10.1996 overlooking the Pension Payment Order (Annexure R-I).

7. According to the respondent the petitioner was not eligible and could not have been paid amount excess to the amount mentioned in the Pension Payment Order (Annexure R -I). However, due to the mistake committed by the fifth respondent who was disbursing the pension as a Banker the petitioner was paid excess amount. On noticing the mistake on the basis of the audit objection the fifth respondent corrected the same and stm1ed making payment to the petitioner in pursuance to the Pension Payment Order by ordering the recovery of the amount which was wrongly paid to the petitioner in excess of her entitlem