SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Cal) 6008

CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
ABHOYCHARAN BASU – Appellant
Versus
PASCHIM BANGA GRAMIN BANK AND OTHERS – Respondent
WPA 9971 / 2020



IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION

APPELLATE SIDE

Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay

WPA 9971 of 2020 Abhoycharan Basu

-Vs-

Paschim Banga Gramin Bank & Ors.

For the Petitioner : Mr. Mohinoor Rahaman

Ms. Iqra Rahaman

Mr. Prosenjit Mukherjee Mr. Prosenjit Chongder

For the Respondent : Mr. Baidurya Ghosal

Nos. 1 to 5 Ms. Aatreyee Dutta

Mr. Saikat Mukherjee

Heard on : 07.12.2023, 22.01.2024, 07.02.2024, 04.12.2024,

22.07.2025

Judgment on : 28.08.2025

Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J.:-

1. The petitioner had prayed for a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing

the Respondent Bank to refund the amount of Rs 1,27,870/- (Rupees One Lakh, Twenty Seven Thousand, Eight Hundred and Seventy only) which was deducted by the Respondent Bank from the SB account of the petitioner

and his wife bearing No. 11210110009836.

2. The petitioner was a retired officer, Scale-1 (OJM-1), of the Paschim Banga

Gramin Bank (hereinafter referred to as ‘Respondent Bank’). On attaining

the age of 60 he retired from his service on November 30, 2014 while he was an Assistant Manager of Banamalinagar Branch, District- Howrah. He had been receiving his pension on and from April 1, 2018.

3. The Respondent Bank issued a notice on December 14, 2018 that as per an order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on April 25, 2018 in SLP (C) 39288/2012, the Officers/Employees, retirees and family members of the deceased employees/officers of the Respondent Bank were eligible to opt for pensions and application for the same should be submitted in writing within April 3, 2019 in order for the applicants to become eligible for the pension as per the notification at the concerned Regional Office where they had last worked. The Petitioner exercised his option for becoming a member of the Paschim Banga Gramin Bank (Employees) Pension Fund on January 18, 2019. His Pension Payment Order was issued on April 17, 2019 and he was paid his pension for the month of February 2019 and March 2019 to the joint account of the petitioner and his wife. The Petitioner had also received Rs 2,60,337.26 (Rupees Two Lakhs, Sixty Thousand, Three Hundred and Thirty Seven; and Twenty Six Paisa Only) on June 28, 2019 and Rs 21,820 (Rupees Twenty One Thousand, Eight Hundred and Twenty Only) on July 3, 2019 for the period from April 1, 2018 to January 1, 2019.

4. On April 17, 2019, the Paschim Banga Gramin Bank (Employees) Pension Fund Trust sanctioned his application for Pension and credited Rs 712303.20 to his PBGB SB bank accountNo. 11210110009836 on November 20, 2019.

5. However, on November 20, 2019, a lump amount of Rs 1,27,870/- (Rupees One Lakh, Twenty Seven Thousand, Eight Hundred and Seventy only) was deducted from his PBGB SB bank account No. 11210110009836 on the pretext of recovery. He was not informed in writing of the reason for the deduction.

6. On December 9, 2019 the Petitioner wrote an letter with regards to the deducted amount to the Respondent Bank. Vide a letter dated December 11, 2019, the Chief Manager, PAD replied stating that there was no anomaly in the payment of pension or commutation and recovery of excess payment. The petitioner sent another communication on August, 25, 2020 with regards to the deducted amount. On September 4, 2020, the General Manager PBGB replied through email affirming that Rs 1,27,870/- (Rupees One Lakh, Twenty Seven Thousand, Eight Hundred and Seventy only) was recovered, the amount was credited to Paschim Banga Gramin Bank (Employees) Pension Fund, recovery of excess pension was paid on account of commutation, and the voucher was an internal document and the passbook entry was the replica of voucher which served the purpose. The petitioners wrote another email on September,14 2020 with regards to the deducted amount, however they received no reply from the respondent bank.

7. The petitioner has submitted that he has been deprived of Rs 1,27,870/-

(Rupees One Lakh, Twenty Seven Thousand, Eight Hundred and Seventy only). The transfer of the amount fro

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top