$~1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 7^thJanuary, 2025 + W.P.(C) 4817/2023 SMT BIMLA KOUL HANDOO .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Sakshi Mehley, Ms. Harshita Kumar, Mr. Sajal Manchanda and Mr. Harsh Chaudhary, Advocates.

versus UNION TERRITORY OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR & ANR.

.....Respondents Through: Mr. Rushab Aggarwal, Standing Counsel with Mrs. Riddhima J.

Aggarwal and Mr. Japnish Singh Bhatia, Advocates for R-1 Mr. Rajinder Wali, Advocate for Respondent No.2 (through V.C.)

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN J U D G M E N T (oral)

1. Petitioner, a widow in her seventies, seeks direction to respondents to refund an amount of Rs.11,61,477/- to her which was, arbitrarily and wrongfully, deducted on 14.10.2022 from her Savings Bank Account, being maintained at Jammu & Kashmir Bank, 5, Prithvi Raj Road-5, New Delhi-110011.

2. Broad facts can be summarized as under:-

(i) The petitioner’s husband Sh. Shuban Lal Handoo (since deceased) was an employee of the Forest Department of Government of Jammu and Kashmir.

(ii) He superannuated on 31.03.2005 and became eligible for payment of pension.

(iii) Pension Payment Order (PPO) No.125203 was passed on Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 4817/2023 1 Digitally Signed

09.11.2005.

(iv) Unfortunately, the husband of the petitioner died on

28.09.2005.

(v) As per Jammu & Kashmir Family Pension-cum-Gratuity Rules, 1964, the petitioner became eligible for family pension, being widow of Sh. Shuban Lal Handoo.

(vi) The petitioner is in receipt of family pension w.e.f.

28.09.2005, which used to be credited in her Savings Bank Account maintained with respondent No.2 Bank in Delhi.

(vii) According to petitioner, for the first time, in September

2022 i.e. after more than 17 years of the continuous disbursal of family pension, the respondent No.1 raised issue of over payment/excess payment of family pension and directed respondent No.2 to initiate recovery from her Bank Account.

(viii) According to the petitioner, no reason, much less a justifiable one was provided as to on what basis any excess amount had been credited to her account and as to how the respondent could, after a delay of around 17 years, recover the amount in said manner.

(ix) According to the petitioner, by virtue of communication bearing No.TRY/ND/2022/357 dated 10.10.2022 and TRY/ND/2022/366/1-4 dated 13.10.2022, issued by the Office of the Treasury Officer, Sub Treasury, Government of Jammu & Kashmir, New Delhi, the respondent No.1 Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 4817/2023 2 Digitally Signed informed respondent No.2 that an amount of Rs. 11,61,477/- had been disbursed in excess in favour of the petitioner for the period from 04.03.2012 to 31.08.2022 and as she was having sufficient amount at the relevant time, deduction was made from her account on

14.10.2022.

3. It is in the above said background that the present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to refund the above said amount.

4. The petitioner has also strongly relied upon judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court given in case of State of Punjab & Ors vs Rafiq Masih: 2014 SCC OnLine SC 1027

5. Para 18 of said judgment reads as under:-

“18. It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship which would govern employees on the issue of recovery, where payments have mistakenly been made by the employer, in excess of their entitlement. Be that as it may, based on the decisions referred to hereinabove, we may, as a ready reference, summarise the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law:

(i) Recovery from the employees belonging to Class III and Class IV service (or Group C and Group D service).

(ii) Recovery from the retired employees, or the employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery.

(iii) Recovery from the employees, when the excess payment has been made for a