IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION

APPELLATE SIDE

Present :-

The Hon’ble Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul

And

The Hon’ble Justice Partha Sarathi Sen

WPCT 193 of 2025

General Manager, State Bank of India and another

-Vs-

Smt. Sabita Dutta and others

For the petitioner/Bank : Mr. Debashis Saha

Mr. Avirup Roy Sanyal

Ms. Sucheta Pal

For the respondent no.1 : Mr. Arun Kr. Paul

Ms. Shikha P. Choudhury

Heard on : 07.01.2026 Judgment on : 07.01.2026

SUJOY PAUL, A.C.J. : –

1. This petitioner filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India

takes exception to the order of Central Administrative Tribunal, Kolkata Bench (Tribunal) dated 22.04.2025 passed in O.A.350/1161/2020 whereby the Original Application (O.A.) filed by respondent/applicant

was allowed and the recovery imposed by the Bank has been set aside.

2. Draped in brevity, the relevant facts are that the respondent no.1 is

widow of Late Balai Krishna Dutta who served as Ex-Clerk in East Frontier Railway, Katihar. The widow was getting family pension after

the demise of her husband.

3. Pension disbursing authority was the State Bank of India/present petitioner. The State Bank of India passed the order dated 31.12.2019 and informed the pensioner that in view of certain over payment in the matter of family pension, it was decided to recover Rs.4365/- per month from her pension till the complete amount of overpayment of Rs.166624/- (excess amount) is recovered.

4. The pensioner filed O.A.350/1161/2020 assailing the said order. The principal argument of the applicant is based on the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) reported in AIR 2015 SC 696. It was highlighted in the said judgment that recovery from retired employees or employees who are due to retire within one year is not permissible. The Tribunal after considering certain judgments of Supreme Court, opined that recovery cannot sustain judicial scrutiny and accordingly set aside the recovery and directed the bank not to recover any amount from pensionary benefits of the applicant. The pivotal question raised by learned counsel for the petitioner bank is based on the subsequent judgment of Supreme Court in the case of High Court of Punjab and Haryana and others vs. Jagdev Singh reported in (2016) 14 SCC 267. It is highlighted that judgment of Rafiq Masih (supra) was distinguished in this judgment by holding that if the employer/bank has taken an undertaking from the employee/pensioner that in the event of any over payment, excess amount needs to be refunded, recovery is permissible. Thus, para (ii) of judgment of Rafiq Masih (supra) was distinguished.

The Tribunal was informed while filing affidavit-in-opposition that such undertaking was given by the pensioner about which averments are mentioned in para 4(c) of the affidavit-in-opposition. In support thereof, Annexure-A i.e. undertaking of the pensioner was filed to show that he undertook that he or his heirs/successors will return the amount of over payment if such eventuality arises. Thus, it is submitted that the judgment of Rafiq Masih (supra) should not have been pressed into service. The singular reason assigned by learned Tribunal is that so called excess payment is determined by the Bank unilaterally and present pensioner has not been heard and therefore, recovery was held to be impermissible.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if non-following the principle of natural justice was the reason to interfere with the recovery, the proper course for the Tribunal was to set aside the recovery and permit the bank to follow the principle of natural justice and pass a fresh order in accordance with law. During course of hearing, he also apprised the court that in the meantime, the entire recovery has been made and applicant’s regular pension has been restored with effect from November 2022.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent/applicant on the other hand supported the impugned order and submitted that