1 2025:CGHC:41416 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6391 of 2021  Pardesi Ram Sakat S/o Late Shri Udan Sakat Aged About 71 Years R/o Infront Of Sai Baba Mandir, Kargi Road Kota, Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2. Accountant General Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3. Joint Director Treasury Account And Pension Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 4. State Bank Of India Through Its Branch Manager Centralized Pension Processing Cell Behind Working Women Hostel Govindpura Bhopal Madhya Pradesh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Ashutosh Shukla, Advocate For State : Mr. Vedant Shadangi, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Ashwani Shukla, Advocate For Respondent No. 4 : Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 18. 08.2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- “10.1 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of Prohibition or any other appropriate direction /order restraining the respondent authorities/Bank to stop deducting the amount from the pension Account of the Petitioner. 10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass an order directing the Respondents and SBI Bank to repay the amount deducted with compensation till SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.08.25 10:00:03 +0530 2 date @ 9% interest rate to the petitioner. 10.3 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem and proper in the present circumstances of the case. An affidavit in support of this writ petition.” 2. The facts of the present case are that the petitioner was working on the post of Peon, and he stood retired from services on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.08.2011. The petitioner was an employee of the School Education Department, and at the relevant time, he was posted at Belgehna High School, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur. For processing, distribution, and disbursement of the pension of pensioners of the State Government employees, State Bank of India is one of the Banks authorized by the State Government. According to the original pension payment order, the basic pension of the petitioner was 3,297/-, which was to be paid as per the 6th central pay commission, but the respondent bank wrongly commenced pension of the petitioner as per the 5th central pay commission, and thus, excess pension was paid to the petitioner. The dearness allowance was higher in the 5th Central Pay Commission than the percentage of the dearness allowance in the 6th Central Pay Commission. 3. The petitioner received an excess pension to the tune of Rs. 1,69,870/- for the period from 01.09.2011 to 31.03.2016, and thereafter, a decision was taken by the bank to recover the amount. The bank started the recovery of excess pension in the form of a monthly installment of Rs. 2,407/- with effect from 01.04.2016, Rs. 2,593/- from 01.10.2016, and Rs. 2,966/- from 01.03.2019. The excess amount of Rs. 1,69,870/- has already been recovered from the petitioner’s account in the month of April, 2021. The petitioner has challenged the decision taken by the Bank to recover the amount from the pension account of the petitioner. 3 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there was no misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the petitioner and the mistake was committed by the bank itself. He would further submit that the petitioner was posted as a Class-IV employee and at present, he is a pensioner. He would contend that the recovery from pension is not permissible under the law. He would pray to allow this petition. 5. On the other hand, learned counsels appearing for the respondents would oppose. Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate, appearing for the Bank, would submit that the petitioner was paid an excess pension amount to the tune of Rs. 1,69,870/- for the period from 01.09.2011 to 31.03.2016. He would further submit that the petitioner was wrongly extended the benefit of the 5th central pay commission, and dearness allowance was also paid accordingly, whereas the pensioner was entitled to receive dearness allowance of the 6th central pay commission. He would further contend that the amount of excess payment has already been recovered. He would also contend that the petitioner had given an undertaking to the effect that any loss suffered or incurred by the bank in so crediting the pension would be recoverable from the bank account or any other account. It is contend that the Reserve Bank of India has issued an office memorandum dated 06.02.2014 with regard to the recovery of wrongful/excess payment made to Government servants. He would submit that the instant petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 7. 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, 4 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 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 higher post, and has been paid accordingly, even though he should have rightfully been required to work 5 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.” 8. 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. 9. 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 applying 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 6 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 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. 10. In the present case, the petitioner is a retired Class-IV employee, and there was no misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the petitioner. The pension 7 was wrongly fixed by the respondent/bank itself, and therefore, the petitioner cannot be penalized. 11. Considering the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the facts of the present case, the order of recovery, if any, is 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. 12. Accordingly, this petition is hereby allowed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant