HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

ORDER :

This writ petition is filed for the following relief;

“to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 2 and 3 in deducting the amount from the pension of the petitioner vide Lr.No.CPPC/HYD/658, Dt.11.6 .2018 so as to deduct an amount of Rs.3,265/- 1/3^rd of gross pension Per Month on the ground of excess payment of pension of an amount of Rs.8,13,871/-(from Dec,2012 to May 2018) without any notice to the petitioner and without following due process of law as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 16, 19 and 21 of Constitution of India and set aside the same”.

2. The case of the petitioner is that she is the wife of late Guvvala Babu Rao, who was employed as a Technician-C (Carpenter) in the Defence Metallurgical Research Laboratory (DMRL), Kanchan Bagh, Hyderabad. Her husband passed away on 25.11.2004 while in service, leaving behind the petitioner, two sons, and two daughters as his legal heirs. Subsequent to her husband’s death, petitioner was declared entitled to a family pension, which she received without interruption from September 2005, drawing Rs. 24,577/- per month until May 2018, under PPO Unique ID No. F02786719. The petitioner claims to have faced financial difficulties in arranging her daughters' marriages and supporting her unemployed sons, relying solely on her pension to meet family obligations, including medical expenses. Further case of the petitioner is that in June 2018, the petitioner’s family pension was suddenly stopped by the 3^rd respondent bank without prior notice. Additionally, an amount of Rs. 4,49,954/- was deducted from her account. Upon inquiry, it was informed by the bank, through letter No. CPPC/HYD/658 dated 11.06.2018, that an alleged overpayment of Rs. 8,13,871/- had been made since 2012. The bank proposed to recover this amount in 250 equated monthly installments of Rs.3,265/- each. It is the contention of the petitioner that the stoppage of her pension and the recovery actions caused severe financial hardship and sudden deduction deprived her of savings meant for her granddaughters' marriages and medical needs. Further contends that the actions of the respondents were undertaken without issuing any prior notice or following due process, violating the principles of natural justice and denies responsibility for the alleged overpayment of pension, claiming it resulted solely from an error on the part of the 2^nd respondent.

4. Heard Sri Kiran Palakurthi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.B. Ganga Reddy, learned counsel representing M/s Pearl Law Associates, learned counsel for respondent No.3

5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the issue raised in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and others vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), 2015(4)SCC 334, wherein, it is held that the excess amount erroneously paid to an employee by the employer, cannot be recovered after retirement.

5. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 has not disputed the said contention.

6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in paragraph 18 of the Rafiq Masih (supra) observed as follows:

“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 period in