1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1890 of 2020 Smt. Prem Ujjawala Das W/o Late S. M. Das Aged About 73 Years R/o H.No. 69/79, Near Shahnai Garden, Rohinipuram, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Director, Directorate Of Culture And Archeology, Mgm Museum, Civil Lines, Near Raj Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 492001 2 - State Bank Of India Centralized Pension Processing Branch, Through Manager, Over Govindpura Branch, Near Triveni Girls Hostel, Bhopal 3 - State Bank Of India Deputy General Manager (B And O), State Bank Of India, Zonal Office, Byron Bazar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - State Bank Of India Through Branch Manager, D.D. Nagar, Near Rohinipuram, Raipur (Chhattisgarh), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Mahant Ghasidas Memorial Museum Through Museum Superintendent, Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents [Cause-title taken from Case Information System (CIS)] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Petitioner : Mr. AK Kundu, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Pranjal Shukla, Panel Lawyer and Mr. PR Patankar, Advocate respectively ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal (Order on Board) 09.04.2026 1. In this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging impugned notice dated 08.01.2020 (Annexure-P/01) by which recovery from the family pension of the petitioner has been directed to be affected by the respondent No.02. SAIFAN KHAN Digitally signed by SAIFAN KHAN 2 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of decision of this Court in Writ Appeal No.46 of 2019 (Branch Manager, Allahabad Bank v. Smt. Sangita Mishra and another) decided on 16.12.2021, recovery via impugned notice from the petitioner (wife of deceased Class-III employee) is illegal, arbitrary and bad in law. Therefore, the same is liable to be quashed. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents supported the impugned notice and prays for dismissal of this petition. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and went through the record with utmost circumspection. 5. Since, petitioner’s husband, namely, SM Das (now deceased) was Class-III employee with the respondent-Bank, in light of the decision of this Court in Smt. Sangita Mishra (supra), wherein in view of dicta of Supreme Court in State of Punjab and others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc. 1 , it has been held that recovery from Class-III & Class-IV employee is impermissible, the impugned notice dated 08.01.2020 (Annexure-P/01), whereby recovery from the family pension of the petitioner (wife of deceased employee) has been initiated is hereby quashed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to file representation before the respondent-competent authority seeking refund of amount already recovered from her family pension by way of impugned notice (Annexure-P/01), if any, within three weeks from today and same shall be considered and decided by the respondent-competent authority by 1 (2015) 4 SCC 334 3 passing reasoned and speaking order expeditiously as possible. 6. With aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition is allowed to the extend indicated herein-above. No cost. sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge s@if