1 / 6 2025:CGHC:37430-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 533 of 2025 1 - State Bank Of India Zonal Manager, Centralized Pension Processing Cell, Kutchery Branch Premises Balashram Complex Raipur, Distt.- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Branch Manager State Bank Of India, Bilaigarh Branch (Branch Code- 05770), Distt.- Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (Chhattisgarh). ... Appellant(s) versus 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) 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Agriculture Department, Capital Complex, Atal Nagar Naya Raipur, Distt.- Raipur (Chhattisgarh). 3 - Director Directorate Of Accounts And Pension, Raipur, Distt.- Raipur (Chhattisgarh). ---- Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. Harshal Chouhan, Advocate For Respondent(s) No.1 : Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate For Respondent(s) No. 2 and 3/State : Mr. Shashansk Thakur, Deputy A.G. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri R avindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.08.01 19:00:31 +0530 2 / 6 Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, C.J. 31/07/2025 1. Heard on I.A. No. 2 of 2025, which is an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. On due consideration, I.A. No. 2 of 2025 is allowed and delay of 40 days in filing the present writ appeal is condoned. 2. The present writ appeal has been filed by the writ appellants against the impugned order dated 01.04.2025, passed by learned Single Judge, in WPS No. 88 of 2025, whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner/respondent No.1 is allowed and the impugned order dated 02.09.2024 is quashed. 3. The brief facts of the case are that, the husband of the petitioner was retired from the post of Senior Agriculture Development Officer on 31.08.2002. After retirement, he died on 12.01.2007. The petitioner being the wife of the deceased employee receiving family pension through her bank account running at State Bank of India, Bilaigarh branch. On 30.11.2023, she was orally informed by the bank authorities that her bank account is kept on hold, but the reason has not been assigned, but till 16.02.2024, she was not permitted to operate her bank account. When she again had gone to withdraw the amount from her bank account, it was informed that due to excess pension paid, Rs. 8 lakhs are hold on her bank account. On 19.02.2024, she made an application for removing of hold from her bank account. Despite legal notice, when the hold from her bank account was not removed, she approached before this Court by filing WPC No. 3172 of 2024, which 3 / 6 was disposed of vide order dated 27.06.2024 directing the petitioner to submit the document as required by the bank authorities and then the bank authorities shall consider and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within the stipulated time frame. On 02.09.2024, the recovery order has been issued by the bank, in which it has been stated that there are excess payment of pension of Rs. 14,55,476/-, which is liable to be recovered from her pension and it was ordered that, till the recovery of entire amount of excess payment, Rs. 7532/- (1/3rd of the pension) is to be recovered per month from the pension of the petitioner, which starts from 30.09.2024. The petitioner has filed the writ petition that she is 76 years old aged lady and there is no fault on her part, as she has never misrepresented to the bank for fixation of the pension. The bank has released the family pension amount since 2009 to 2024. By the impugned order of recovery, she would be prejudiced as she is fully dependent upon the family pension. 4. After hearing the parties, on 01.04.2025, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner and quashed the order dated 02.09.2024 and directed the writ appellants/bank, not to recover any amount from the family pension of the petitioner, and full pension be paid to her as per her entitlement, which is under challenge in the present writ appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the writ appellants would vehemently submit that, the excess amount paid to the petitioner, is an amount of public exchequer and is required to be recovered from her. There is an undertaking by the petitioner with respect to right of recovery in favour 4 / 6 of the bank towards excess payment. He would also submit that in the earlier round of litigation, in WPC No. 3172 of 2024, there was a direction to submit the documents as required by the bank, mentioned in the reply of the legal notice dated 15.04.2024, but the petitioner has not complied with the said order, and therefore, as per the records available with the bank, they issued the recovery order dated 02.09.2024. Although the petitioner claimed that, she is only the bread winner of her family and her financial condition is very poor, yet the excess payment should be recovered from her in installments to the extent of 1/3rd of her family pension, yet the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition and quashed the order dated 02.09.2024, therefore, the impugned order dated 01.04.2025 is liable to be set- aside and the writ petition is also liable to be dismissed. *******He would further submit that the learned Single Judge should at least have granted an opportunity to file a departmental appeal as provided under the Rules of 1969. Therefore, the impugned order suffers from perversity and illegality and the same is liable to be set aside. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the private respondent No.1 would support the impugned order and submitted that after considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and law applicable to it, the learned Single Judge has passed the reasoned order, which is justified and the writ appeal is liable to be dismissed. 7. Learned appearing for the respondents No. 2 and 3/State would submit that the recovery order has been issued by the bank, and therefore, he is contesting the case. The State would be a formal party in the present 5 / 6 writ petition. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials annexed with the writ appeal as well as the writ petition. 9. Undisputedly, the petitioner is receiving family pension on account of death of her husband in the year 2007, who was a retired employee from government service. The petitioner who is presently aged about 77 years, is dependent upon the family pension. The bank could not demonstrate any misrepresentation or playing fraud by the petitioner for fixation of her family pension and it is the bank authorities have paid after taking a conscious decision with respect to the family pension of the petitioner and her entitlement. The recovery order has been made after alleged excess payment made for 15 years. The learned Single Judge has also considered the difficulties and livelihood of the petitioner as she is the sole bread winner of her family by way of the family pension and is not a condition to pay back the excess amount which she has already drawn. While considering the case of the petitioner, the learned Single Judge adverted all the legal and equitable grounds applicable to the present case and quashed the impugned recovery order dated 02.09.2024. The learned Single Judge has also distinguished the judgment of “Chandiprasad Uniyal and others v. State of Uttrakhand and others” 2012 (8) SCC 417 on the facts of that case. 10. Upon perusing the impugned order, we noticed that the same has been rendered by the learned Single Judge with cogent and justifiable reasons. In an intra-court appeal, no interference is usually warranted 6 / 6 unless palpable infirmities are noticed. Learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition by the impugned order has adverted to all the facts of the case. 11. We do not find any good ground to interfere with the finding recorded by learned Single Judge and the appeal being devoid of merits, liable to be and hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice ved