Pension recovery actions by banks must follow specified policies and cannot infringe on due process principles.

ORDER Being aggrieved by the communication dated

02.12.2015 (Annex. A/1) issued by the Bank (respondent No. 5) initiating recovery of overpayment made to the applicant, as also to the notice dated 18.08.2016 issued to the applicant by the Bank with regard to recovery, the applicant has preferred this OA with prayer to quash and set aside above communications and restrain the respondents from recovering Rs 3,31,706/-.

2. The facts necessary to adjudicate this OA are as under:- 2.1 The applicant’s husband late Shri Laxman Singh Bhati was working as Store Keeper in the respondent department (C.G.W.B.) respondent No. 3. He died while in service on 02.04.2008. After his death, the Pension Payment Order (PPO) dated 11.06.2008 (Annex. A/3) was issued in favour of the applicant granting her family pension.

2.2 As per facts of the case, the Bank started deducting Rs 4300/- per month from the applicant's account from October, 2015. The applicant received communication dated

02.12.2015 (Annex. A/1) wherein it has been mentioned that there is an overpayment of Rs 3,31,706/- in the pension account maintained at the Bank. She also received a notice dated 18.08.2016 (Annex. A/2) issued by the Bank asking her to deposit the due amount of Rs 2,88,706/- against overpayment of pension. It is the averment of the applicant that the basis for alleged overpayment was not mentioned in the above communication and notice. She approached respondent No. 5 on several occasions to provide the reasons and details of the recovery. It is alleged that the Bank had started recovery without disclosing any reason despite several requests made in this regard by her.

2.3 The applicant served legal notice dated 23.04.2018 (Annex. A/5). It is alleged that the action of the Bank in recovering the amount is illegal and arbitrary depriving the applicant from her lawful right of opportunity of hearing. It is contended that no recovery can be made without following principles of natural justice.

2.4 Challenging the recovery, the applicant has preferred this OA with a prayer to quash and set aside the recovery initiated against her. The applicant has relied upon the OM dated 06.02.2014 (Annex. A/6) and another OM dated

02.03.2016 (Annex. A/7) issued by the DoP&T.

2.5 As per reply filed by the respondents No. 1 to 4, it is not a case where the official respondents (respondent No. 1 to 4) sought to make any recovery from the applicant. It is the Bank (respondent No. 5) who made the excess payment to her in contravention of the instructions issued under the PPOs from time to time. Therefore, the instant case does not cover the service matter dispute between the employer and the employee. The official respondents have placed on record the OM dated 16.05.2018 (Annex. R/1) whereby procedures for recovery of excess payment made to the pensioners/family pensioners by the bank have been narrated. Excess payment was made to the applicant towards pension. The Bank is the custodian of public money and any overpayment made by the Bank is liable to be recovered in terms of the OMs and circulars stated herein above. Contradicting the claim of the applicant, the respondent prayed to dismiss the OA.

2.6 As per reply filed by the Bank (respondent No. 5), excess payment of Rs 3,31,706/- towards pension was made to the applicant. After getting instructions from respondent No. 2 & 3 and keeping in view directions issued by Reserve Bank of India, notice dated 02.12.2015 (Annex. A/1) was served to the applicant. The respondent No. 5 has relied upon the Circular dated 17.03.2016 issued by the Reserve Bank of India wherein uniform procedure in consultation with the Controller General of Accounts and various non-civil Ministries for recovery of excess/wrong pension payments has been