Chattisgarh High Court
Smt. Sumanlata vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 26 August, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:43292
NAFR
HIGH COURT of CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 6883 of 2018
Smt. Dileshwari Yadav W/o Late Shri Anjor Singh Yadav Aged About 44 Years R/o
Quarter No. 11/24, officer Colony, S.F. Line Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh.,
District : Durg, Chhattisgarh
--- Petitioner
versus
1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of Home, Mahanadi
Bhawan, Mantralaya New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
2 - Assistant General Manager State Bank of India, Centralized Pension Processing
Cell Behind Working Women Hostel, Govindpura, Bhopal (Madhya Pradesh). Pin
462023
3 - Branch Manager State Bank of India, At office Near Main Chowk,
Bhanupratappur, Antagarh Road, Bhanupratappur, District Kanker Chhattisgarh.
--- Respondent(s)
WPS No. 7623 of 2018
1 – Smt. Sumanlata W/o Late Shri Aadesh Kumar Pal Aged About 32 Years R/o
Quarter No. B Block, B4, Stf Colony Raipur Naka, S.F. Line Bhilai, District Durg
Chhattisgarh.
—Petitioner(s)
Versus
1 – State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of Home, Mahanadi
Bhawan, Mantralaya New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
2 – Assistant General Manager State Bank of India, Centralized Pension Processing
Cell Behind Working Women Hostel, Govindpura, Bhopal (Madhya Pradesh) Pin
462023., District : Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh
3 – Branch Manager, State Bank of India, At office Ganjpara, Durg, District Durg
2
Chhattisgarh.
--- Respondent(s)
For Petitioner : Mr. Barun Chakraborty with
Mr. G.P. Mathur, Advocate
For State : Mr. Vedant Shadangi, Panel Lawyer
For State Bank of India : Mr. P. R. Patankar, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Order on Board
26.08.2025
1. By way of these petitions, the petitioners have sought the following
relief(s):-
“10.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 and also blocked ATM card
and account may kindly be opened, 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. The facts of the present case are that the husbands of the petitioners were
working as Constables in the Police Department, and during Naxalite
operations, the husband of the petitioner in WPS No. 6883/2018 died on
05.05.2011 and the husband of the petitioner in WPS No. 7623/2018 died
on 05.04.2012. The petitioners, being the widows of the deceased
constables, were found eligible for the benefit of Extraordinary Pension. The
office of the Joint Director, Accounts and Pension prepared pay notes and
3
forwarded them to the respondent Bank. It was specifically observed by the
State Authorities, i.e., by the office of the Joint Director, Accounts and
Pension, that the petitioners would not be entitled to Dearness Allowance.
However, due to a mistake committed by the Bank, Dearness Allowance
was added to the pension amount as assessed by the said office. The
extraordinary pension payable to the petitioner in WPS No. 7623/2018 was
₹14,347/-, and to the petitioner in WPS No. 6883/2018 it was ₹15,936/-. In
WPS No. 7623/2018, the petitioner received excess payment from
01.07.2012 to 31.08.2018 amounting to ₹11,94,418/-, and in WPS No.
6883/2018, excess payment was made from 01.09.2011 to 31.07.2018,
amounting to ₹13,47,677/-. The mistakes were detected by the Bank
authorities in the year 2018 itself, and thereafter notices were issued to the
petitioners regarding recovery, against which the present petitions have
been filed.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the
petitioners, being widows of deceased constables, are receiving
Extraordinary Pension under the policy of the State Government. It is
contended that there was no misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the
petitioners; rather, the mistake was solely on the part of the Bank. It is
further submitted that though the authorization orders issued by the
Director, Treasury and Pension specifically recorded that the beneficiaries
were not entitled to Dearness Allowance, the same was extended and
continued for more than six years. It is further contended that the Bank did
4
not afford any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and started
recovery of the amount from their bank accounts. It is submitted that the
order of recovery, if any, and the recovery already made, deserve to be
quashed, and the respondent Bank may be directed to refund the
recovered amount.
4. On the other hand, Mr. P.R. Patankar, learned counsel appearing for the
State Bank of India would oppose the submission made by counsel for the
petitioner and submit that though the excess payment has been made in
the Extraordinary Pension to the petitioners, however they were not entitled
to Dearness Allowance. It is submitted that due to the Bank’s mistake, the
benefit was wrongly extended. He would further submit that in terms of the
circulars and guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India and
Government of India, the Bank is empowered to recover such excess
payment. He also submitted that undertakings were given by the
petitioners to the effect that any loss suffered by the Bank would be
recoverable from them.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents
placed on the record.
6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sahib Ram vs. State of
Haryana reported in 1995 SUPP. (1) SCC 18, Shyam Babu Verma and
others vs. Union of India and others, reported in 1994 (2) SCC 521,
Union of India And Anr. vs M. Bhaskar And Ors, reported in 1996 (4)
SCC 416, V. Gangaram vs. Regional Joint Director and others, reported
5
in 1997 (6) SCC 139, has categorically held that if excess payment was not
made on account of misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the
employee and such excess payment was made by the employer by applying
a wrong principle for calculating pay/allowance or on the basis of a
particular interpretation of rules/order which is subsequently found to be
erroneous, the order of recovery would not be competent. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the matter of State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White
Washer) and others, (2015) 4 SCC 334, held that the excess payment
made to an employee cannot be recovered, if such a Government servant is
a Class-III or Class-IV employee, the order has been issued after five years
and the order of recovery has been issued after the retirement of an
employee. The relevant para 18 is reproduced herein-below:-
“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 employees belonging to Class-III and
Class-IV service (or Group ‘C’ and Group ‘D’ service).
(ii) Recovery from retired employees, or employees
who are due to retire within one year, of the order of
recovery.
(iii) Recovery from employees, when the excess
payment has been made for a period in excess of five
years, before the order of recovery is issued.
(iv) Recovery in cases where an employee has
wrongfully been required to discharge duties of a
6higher post, and has been paid accordingly, even
though he should have rightfully been required to
work against an inferior post.
(v) In any other case, where the court arrives at the
conclusion, that recovery if made from the employee,
would be iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary to such an
extent, as would far outweigh the equitable balance of
the employer’s right to recover.”
7. The principles of law laid down in the above referred decisions would apply
in the case of pensioners also, and they may seek a direction that wrong
payments should not be recovered, as pensioners are in a more
disadvantageous position when compared to in-service employees.
8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Col. (Retd.) B.J. Akkara vs
The Govt. of India & Ors reported in (2006) 11 SCC 709, in para 27, 28, &
29 held as under:-
“27. The last question to be considered is whether relief
should be granted against the recovery of the excess
payments made on account of the wrong
interpretation/understanding of the circular dated 7.6.1999.
This Court has consistently granted relief against recovery
of excess wrong payment of emoluments/allowances from
an employee, if the following conditions are fulfilled [Vide
Sahib Ram vs. State of Haryana [1995 Suppl.1 SCC 18],
Shyam Babu Verma vs. Union of India [1994 (2) SCC 521],
Union of India vs. M. Bhaskar [1996 (4) SCC 416], and V.
Gangaram vs. Regional Joint Director [AIR 1997 SC 2776] :
a) The excess payment was not made on account of any
misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee.
b) Such excess payment was made by the employer by
7applying a wrong principle for calculating the
pay/allowance or on the basis of a particular interpretation
of rule/order, which is subsequently found to be erroneous.
28. Such relief, restraining recovery back of excess
payment, is granted by courts not because of any right in
the employees, but in equity, in exercise of judicial
discretion, to relieve the employees, from the hardship that
will be caused if recovery is implemented. A Government
servant, particularly one in the lower rungs of service would
spend whatever emoluments he receives for the upkeep of
his family. If he receives an excess payment for a long
period, he would spend it genuinely believing that he is
entitled to it. As any subsequent action to recover the
excess payment will cause undue hardship to him, relief is
granted in that behalf. But where the employee had
knowledge that the payment received was in excess of what
was due or wrongly paid, or where the error is detected or
corrected within a short time of wrong payment, Courts will
not grant relief against recovery. The matter being in the
realm of judicial discretion, courts may on the facts and
circumstances of any particular case refuse to grant such
relief against recovery.
29. On the same principle, pensioners can also seek a
direction that wrong payments should not be recovered, as
pensioners are in a more disadvantageous position when
compared to in-service employees. Any attempt to recover
excess wrong payment would cause undue hardship to
them. The petitioners are not guilty of any
misrepresentation or fraud in regard to the excess payment.
NPA was added to minimum pay, for purposes of stepping
up, due to a wrong understanding by the implementing
8
departments. We are therefore of the view that
Respondents shall not recover any excess payments made
towards pension in pursuance of circular dated 7.6.1999 till
the issue of the clarificatory circular dated 11.9.2001. In so
far as any excess payment made after the circular dated
11.9.2001, obviously the Union of India will be entitled to
recover the excess as the validity of the said circular has
been upheld and as pensioners have been put on notice in
regard to the wrong calculations earlier made.
9. In the present case, the petitioners are widow of the deceased Constables,
who lost their lives in naxallite operation and there was no
misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the petitioners. The DA was was
wrongly fixed by the respondent/bank itself, and therefore, the petitioners
cannot be penalized.
10. Considering the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the facts
of the present cases, the orders of recovery, if any, are hereby quashed. The
respondent bank shall not recover any amount paid in excess to the
petitioner, and the amount which has already been recovered shall be
refunded forthwith.
11. Accordingly, this petition is hereby allowed.
Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
Judge
Nadim
[ad_1]
Source link