##PAGE1##

1

Digitally

signed by

SIDDHANT

S TAID MD RH AA KN AT

R 2026:CGHC:20387

TAMRAKAR Date:

2026.05.07

14:28:40

+0530

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

WPS No. 3080 of 2017

 Smt. Kiran Patel W/o Late Shri Pramod Kumar Patel Aged About 35 Years

Resident Of Ward No. 03, Purana Vrindavan Vidyalaya, Imalibhata,

Mahasamund, District Mahasamund, Chattisgarh.

... Petitioner

versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Home, Mahanadi

Bhawan, Mantralaya New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

2. Branch Manager, State Bank Of India, Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh.

3. State Bank Of India, Centralized Pension Processing Centre Govindrapura

Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh.

... Respondent(s)

For Petitioner : Mr. Shashi Kumar Kushwaha, Advocate

holding the brief of Mr. Ajay Shrivastava,

Advocate

For State : Mr. Abhishek Singh, Panel Lawyer

For Respondents No. 2 & 3 : Mr. Pankaj Singh, Advocate

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

Order on Board

01.05 .2026

1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):-

“10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be

pleased to quash the recovery (mentioned in

Annexure P-1) and the same may be declared as

illegal, in the interest of justice.

10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be

pleased to direct the respondent to refund the

recovered amount 2,50,000 + 10,000/- (from

March 2017) and any other recovery in this regard

with 18% interest, in the interest of justice.

2

10.3 Any other relief which may be suitable in the

facts and circumstances of the case, may also be

granted.”

2. The facts in brief are that the husband of the petitioner Shri Pramod Kumar

Patel was a Constable in the Police department, who died on 29.12.2008 in

Naxalite operation. The petitioner, being wife of Late Pramod Kumar Patel,

was being paid family pension through State Bank of India, Branch

Mahasamund. In month of February, 2017, the petitioner was receiving

family pension to the tune of Rs. 22,900/-, thereafter, her pension was

reduced to Rs. 4,870/- without affording any opportunity of hearing and

without assigning any reason and further order of recovery of Rs. 2,500/- per

month from her account was initiated by the Bank authorities.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the decision of

deduction of pension and recovery were initiated without affording any

opportunity of hearing. He would contend that there was no

misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner and, therefore, no amount from

the pension can be deducted. He has placed reliance on the judgment passed

by the Coordinate Bench in the matter of Surendra Singh vs. State of

Chhattisgarh passed in WPS No. 1181 of 2017, wherein, the order of Bank

authorities with regard to recovery of 7,06,149/- was set-aside on the ground

that it was mistake on the part of the Bank authorities. He would pray to

allow this petition.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 2 & 3

would submit that the petitioner was wrongly extended benefit of dearness

allowance and when this mistake was detected by the Bank authorities,

decision was taken to withdraw said benefit and recover amount of excess

3

payment. It is argued by Mr. Pankaj Singh that benefit of dearness allowance

was extended to the petitioner pursuant to direction issued by the Treasury

Accounts and Pension, District Treasury Office, North Bastar Kanker. It is

also contended by Mr. Singh that an undertaking was given by the petitioner

to the effect that any excess payment made to the pensioner would be

refundable. He has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in the matter of High Court of Punjab and Haryana and

Others vs. Jagdev Singh reported in (2016) 14 SCC 267.

5. Mr. Abhishek Singh, Panel Lawyer would submit that there is dispute

between the petitioner and respondents No. 2 & 3.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents

placed on record.

7. Admittedly, the petitioner is a pensioner. She is getting her pension through

the State