1 / 5 2025:CGHC:15328 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 88 of 2025 1 - Smt. Vimla Singh W/o Late Shri Buddhiman Singh Aged About 77 Years R/o Bansurkuli Bilaigarh, Thana And Tahsil- Bilaigarh, Distt.- Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (Chhattisgarh) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Agriculture Department, Capital Complex, Atal Nagar Naya Raipur, Distt.- Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 2 - Director Directorate of Accounts And Pension, Raipur, Distt.- Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 3 - State Bank Of India Through Zonal Manager, Centralized Pension Processing Cell, Kutchery Branch Premises Balashram Complex Raipur, Distt.- Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Branch Manager State Bank of India, Bilaigarh Branch (Branch Code- 05770), Distt.- Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondents (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Ajit Singh, G.A. For Respondent/Bank : Mr. Anumesh Shrivastava, Advocate (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2025.04.02 16:42:00 +0530 2 / 5 01/04/2025 1. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 02/09/2024 issued by the State Bank of India, by which, they shown the excess payment of Rs.14,55,476/- and fixed the monthly installment of Rs. 7532/- per month towards recovery w.e.f. 30-9-2024. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the husband of the petitioner retired from the post of Senior Agriculture Development Officer on 31/08/2002, thereafter, he used to receive the pension. He died on 12/01/2007. After his death, the petitioner being a wife, is getting the family pension regularly from the Bank. When she went to the bank for withdrawal of money on 30/11/2023, the bank authorities have not allowed the petitioner to withdraw the money on the ground that the said amount is on hold. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the bank authorities on ‘n’ number of occasions and when no action has been taken, she sent a legal notice to which the bank submitted its reply stating therein that the excess amount has been paid to the petitioner. Thereafter, they passed the impugned order wherein it has been stated that the excess amount of Rs.14,55,476/- has been paid to the petitioner between the period 12/08/2009 to 31/03/2024 and initiated the recovery of the amount at the rate of Rs.7532/- per month with effect from 30/09/2024. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that on account of impugned action on the part of the respondent authorities, the petitioner, who is a septuagenarian, suffering from several ailments and she is facing hefty financial difficulties in her day to day life and even she is not 3 / 5 in a position to meet her medical expenses because of the impugned action on the part of the respondent authorities. In support of his contention, he would place reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the matter of Union of India And Others Vs. Rekha Majhi1. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent authorities would support the impugned order and submit that since the excess amount, which is a public exchequer, has been paid to the petitioner, the same is required to be recovered from her. The order impugned is just and proper warranting no interference of this Court. To buttress his contention, learned counsel would placed reliance upon the decision rendered by the High Court of Adjudicature at Patna in the matte of Lalita Mishra Vs. The Union of India and Others2, which has been decided by placing reliance upon the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Chandi Prasad Uniyal And Others Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others3. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and the documents. 5. It is not in dispute that the husband of the petitioner retired from service in the year 2002 and died in the year 2007 and since then, the petitioner is getting the family pension and using the same for her expanses. All of a sudden, after a period of one and a half decade, the respondent/bank hold the bank account of the 1 (2000) 10 SCC 659 2 Civil writ jurisdiction Case No.19435/2019 (Decided on 03/09/2024) 3 (2012) 8 SCC 417 4 / 5 petitioner stating that the excess payment has been paid to the petitioner and the same is required to be recovered. The contention of the respondent does not found force as the payment of alleged excess amount has not been received by the petitioner by playing a fraud. 6. In the matter of Chandi Prasad Uniyal (supra), the issue was relating to excess payment of salary whereas the present case relating to family pension of a widow of the deceased employee and hence, the reliance placed by the learned State counsel is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 7. It appears that the family pension paid to the petitioner after the conscious decision was taken in respect thereof. Moreover, it is stated that the petitioner who is a widow is the lone breadearner of the family and her financial condition is not such as to pay back the excess amount she has already drawn. Under the circumstances, in the considered view of this Court, the recovery of excess pension paid to the writ petitioner is not justified on legal and equitable ground. 8. In the result, the impugned order dated 2-9-2024 (Annexure-P/1) is quashed. The respondent authorities are directed not to recover any amount from the pension of the petitioner and full pension be paid to the petitioner as per her entitlement. If any amount is recovered pursuant to the impugned order, the same may also be returned to the petitioner within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 5 / 5 9. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands allowed, leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s). SD/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE Amardeep/ Gowri