2026:CGHC:7722 NAFR PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PAWAN KUMAR JHA WPS No. 3373 of 2025 Smt. Bhagwantin Bai W/o Shri Tilak Ram Dewangan Aged About 69 Years R/o Village- Banbaghera, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.)

... Petitioner(s)

Versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Health, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya New Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)

2 - Director Treasury Account And Pension, Atal Nagar, Raipur District- Raipur Chhattisgarh.

3 - Chief Medical And Health Officer Rajnandgaon District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.

4 - Branch Manager Bank Of Maharashtra, At Branch Office Ghumka, District -

Rajnandgaon (C.G.)

... Respondent(s)

For Petitioner : Mr. Gopal Prasad Mathur, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 to : Ms. Shailja Shukla, G.A.

For Respondent No. 4 Mr. Anumesh Shrivastava, Advocate HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE PARTH PRATEEM SAHU

Order on Board

11/02/2026

1. The present writ petition has been filed seeking following reliefs:

“(I) That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash Annexure-P/1 and restrain the respondent from making further recovery and to refund the recovered amount with

18% interest, in the interest of justice.

(ii) Any other relief which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case including cost of the petition, may also be granted”

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that husband of the petitioner Late Tilak Ram Dewangan, was working on the post of Assistant stood retired from service w.e.f. 31.12.2006 (as per pleadings in writ petition 21.12.2006). After retirement, husband of the petitioner was being paid pension as per service rules and he died on 06.01.2009. After death of the husband of petitioner, she was being paid family pension as per rules. On 05.04.2025, respondent bank has issued a notice of recovery for a sum of Rs. 11,57,424/- on the ground that excess pension is paid for the period from 03.12.2013 to 28.02.2025. He contended that the husband of the petitioner was Class-III employee and after his retirement he was paid pension, who also died on 06.01.2009 and therefore, recovery as sought for by the respondent bank is not permissible in the eyes of law. In support of his contention he has placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc.

reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 and the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in WA No. 46 of 2019 (Branch Manager, Allahabad Bank v. Smt.

Sangita Mishra & Another) decided on 16.12.2021.

3. Learned counsel for the Respondent No. 4 opposes the submission of learned counsel for petitioner and would submit that along with the reply respondent-bank has placed on record, undertaking given by husband of petitioner during his lifetime Annexure-P/3 declaring that if any excess payment is made due to mistake in fixation of pension then the respondents may recover excess payment if any. Similar undertaking was given by the petitioner herein on 20.02.2009. He contended that in view of the undertaking given by the deceased employee as also by the petitioner, now she is estopped from challenging the proceedings of recovery initiated by respondent-bank vide Annexure-P/1. In support of his contention he has placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of High Court of Punjab & Harayana and Others v. Jagdev Singh, reported in (2016) 14 SCC 267 and in the matter of Jagdish Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar and Others, reported in (2024) SCC OnLine SC 1909

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

5. The status of late husband of the petitioner to be Class-III employee is not disputed by counsel for the respondent No. 4. He submits that the extra pension amount has been paid to the petitioner during period from

03.12.2013 to 28.02.2025.

6. The status of the petitioner is of a widow aged about 69 years and is dependent only on the family pension. Recovery of the amount from small monthly pension which is to be pa