IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-27211-2023 Amarjit Kaur .....Petitioner Versus State Bank of India and others .....Respondents 1. Reserved on : 14.07.2026 2. Pronounced on : 17.07.2026 3. Uploaded on the website : 17.07.2026 4. Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or full judgment is pronounced : Full 5. The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full judgment, and reasons thereof : Not applicable CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR Argued by : Mr. Sunny Singla, Advocate with Ms. Dilpreet Kaur, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gaurav Goel, Advocate and Mr. Teginder Singh, Advocate for the respondent-Bank. Mr. Raghav Garg, AAG, Punjab for the respondent-State. **** NAMIT KUMAR , J. 1. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari, for quashing of the order/notice dated 02.11.2023 (Annexure P-1), whereby the family pension has been reduced and refixed and recovery has been initiated to the tune of Rs.7,00,345/- from the family pension of the petitioner by deducting Rs.7,009/- per month with effect from 20.11.2023 from the deposit account of the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the VINAY 2026.07.17 17:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-27211-2023 -2- petitioner was regularly receiving pension till the issuance of the impugned order/notice dated 02.11.2023 (Annexure P-1), on the basis of which, her family pension has been refixed and recovery to the tune of Rs.7,00,345/- has been initiated, stating that there had been an error while computing her pension. He further submits that since there is no fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner, the action of the respondents is unjust and arbitrary. 3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent- Bank, while referring to the averments made in para 4 of the reply, submitted that PPO No.49827/S/PB dated 10.08.2004 was issued by the office of the Accountant General (A&E), Punjab, Chandigarh, and the petitioner was entitled to enhanced basic pension of Rs.2,700/- per month with effect from 24.10.2003 to 23.10.2010 and thereafter, payable at normal rate of Rs.1,800/- per month. On revision of the pension under recommendations of the Fifth Punjab Pay Commission, the petitioner was entitled to normal rate of basic pension i.e. Rs.4,068/- with effect from 01.12.2011, however, inadvertently while revising the pension of the petitioner, the basic pension was revised corresponding to enhanced rate of basic pension and fixed at Rs.6,102/- and the petitioner kept on receiving inflated rate of pension during the period from 01.12.2011 to 31.10.2023, which resulted into an over- payment of Rs.7,00,345/- to her, in excess of her entitlement. He further submitted that the petitioner had given an affidavit dated 03.09.2004 (Annexure R-2) and undertaking dated 06.09.2004 (Annexure P-3), whereby it had been undertaken by her to refund the excess amount of pension/family pension, if any, paid to her erroneously by the VINAY 2026.07.17 17:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-27211-2023 -3- Government/Bank. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. The issue involved in the present case has already been decided against the petitioner by a Division Bench of this Court in Balbir Singh vs. State of Haryana and others, LPA-874 of 2014, decided on 04.09.2014, which was followed in Surinderjit Singh vs. State of Punjab and others, CWP-8511-2020 decided on 12.09.2023 and Parkash Singh vs. State Bank of India, CWP-18089-2019 decided on 29.01.2024. 6. The question whether revision of clerical error in fixing of pension and subsequent recovery of the excess amount so paid is correct in the eyes of law, was discussed and answered in the affirmative in Balbir Singh's case (supra), relevant paras thereof read thus: "The appellant is not challenging the fixation of his pension. He also does not dispute that after re-fixation of his pension by the authorities, less payment was to be made, but due to inadvertent clerical error on the part of the bank authorities, excess amount was credited in his pension account, which he was not entitled to. In these circumstances, notice was issued to the appellant to refund the excess payment received by him. In our opinion, the said excess payment, which was made to the appellant due to clerical error on the part of the bank, is duly recoverable. The aforesaid judgments, relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant, are not applicable in the wake of the situation as sketched out above. The principle laid down in these judgments is that where the Government consciously makes excess payment to an employee considering that it was validly being given to him, but later on it is found that such employee was not actually entitled to receive the said amount, in that situation, if the excess payment was made under bonafide act of the State, and without any misrepresentation or fraud by the employee, recovery of such excess payment cannot be effected from the employee after his retirement. VINAY 2026.07.17 17:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-27211-2023 -4- This principle enunciated in the aforesaid judgments does not apply to the facts of the present case. Here, due to clerical error on the part of the bank, excess amount was credited in the pension account of the appellant. for which he was not entitled to either at that time or subsequently. Therefore, such amount has to be refunded by the appellant to the authorities, which has been received by him in excess. The principle of unjust enrichment will be applicable in the present case and when the appellant is approaching this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, he cannot be granted an inequitable benefit, by relying upon the aforesaid judgments. The necessary relief has already been granted to the appellant by the learned Single Judge, which in our opinion is more than the relief, which he deserves. We do not find any illegality in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. No merit. Dismissed.” 7. Relevant paras of Parkash Singh's case (supra), a similar case where rectification of wrongly fixed pension and recovery of excess pension paid prior to it was upheld, read thus: “The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-Bank contends that the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed since an excess amount had been released in favour of the petitioner on fixation of higher pension, even though the same was neither admissible nor payable to him. An inadvertent release of excess amount would not confer any title on the petitioner to retain the said money. The recovery of excess pension was effected by way of monthly installments commencing from October 2018 onwards. It is further contended that there is no relationship of employer and employee between the petitioner and the respondent-Bank and that the respondent-Bank is acting only as a pension disbursing agency for and on behalf of the Sanctioning Authority. A mere error in crediting pension cannot thus fasten liability on the respondent Bank and a recipient of an undue benefit would be liable to refund the excess benefit received by him. He further contends that the issue in question has already been decided by this Court in CWP No.14116 of 2015 titled as 'Chaman Lal Vs. State of Punjab & Others' decided on 27.04.2022 as well as in CWP-8511 of 2020 titled as 'Surinderjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Others' decided on 12.09.2023. Both these cases pertain to the wrong re-fixing of the pension by the Bank and the recovery thereof. The action of the bank in effecting the recovery has been upheld by this Court by referring to the judgment in the matter of State of Punjab and others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc. reported VINAY 2026.07.17 17:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-27211-2023 -5- as (2015) 4 SCC 334 and holding that the said judgment is not applicable to the facts of the concerned case. Reliance was also placed on a Division Bench Judgment of this Court in LPA No.874 of 2014 titled as 'Balbir Singh Versus State of Haryana and others' decided on 04.09.2014 to contend that clerical mistake in refixation of the pension can be rectified and the excess amount paid can be duly recovered. The abovesaid orders passed by this Court are not refuted or denied by the counsel for the petitioner. The counsel for the petitioner also does not dispute that the controversy involved in the present case is covered by the ratio of the above judgment. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the present petition, and the same deserves to be dismissed in light of the judgments passed by this Court in the matters of Chaman Lal and Surinderjit Singh (supra). The instant petition is accordingly dismissed.” 8. The said judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Balbir Singh's case (supra) has also been followed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.18161 of 2021 titled as 'Makhan Singh v. State of Punjab and others', decided on 19.03.2024. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to controvert the factual position and draw out any distinctive aspects in the aforementioned judgments or cite any contrary law. 10. Keeping in view the above, the present petition is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. 17.07.2026 (NAMIT KUMAR) Vinay JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No VINAY 2026.07.17 17:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment