APHC010339362023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITIONNO: 17501 OF 2023 Between: M Srinivasa Rao, S/o. (Late) M.Tandava Krishhna Murthy Age 57 years, Occ. Ex-Serviceman, D.No.7-2-6/A. 10th ward Niduborlu (Vi), Ponnur (M), Guntur District. ...Petitioner AND 1. The Principal Controller of Defense Accounts, O/o. Principal Controller of Defense Accounts, Draupadi Ghat, Sardar Bazar, Prayagraj Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh -211 014. 2. The General Manager, State Bank of India, Centralized Pension Processing Center, (Dept), NTR Circle, Patamatalanka, D.No. 64-9-2 K.S Complex, Krishna District. (Vijayawada) -521101. 3. The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Ponnur Branch (01460), Indhira Gandhi Municipal Complex Building, SPP Road, Ponnur, Guntur District. 522124. ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased that this Honourable Court in the interest of Justice be pleased to in the nature of Writ of a Writ, order or direction more particularly one mandamus.- issue by declaring the entire action of the respondents, particularly the entire action impugned Lr.No. CPPC/22-23/25 dated. 29-3-2023 by the 1sst respondent, which is addressed to the 3rd respondent, wherein amount of Rs. 18,289/- w.e.f 1-3-2023 to December 2023 from the A) of the respondents 2and 3 in issuing, the present directing to recover an 30-11-2023 and Rs. 6,020/- in petitioner war injury and army service pension account No. 10719853427 (PPO No. D/BC/73/97) ie., total amount of Rs. 1,70,614/-, even without putting any prior notice nor opportunity. to the petitioner is as highly illegal, arbitrary, unjust, improper without authority, vindictive attitude, opposed to article 300A and violative of all principles of natural justice and contrary to various judicial pronouncements including judgment of Hon ble High court of Bombay dated. 20-8-2020 in LD.VC. CW -665 -2020 in subject matter, and set aside the impugned letter the same dated.29-3-2023 of the 2nd respondent. And consequently to direct the respondents not to recover any amount from the pension account of the petitioner in furtherance of impugned letter no. CPPC/22-23/25 dated.29-3-2023 with a direction by directed the respondents to credit the B) further amounts which were recovered from the pension account of the petitioner, to enable the petitioner to get his pension which was drawing prior to the month of March 2023 lA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents not to recover any amount from the pension account of the petitioner and re-credit the amounts which were recovered from the p pension account of the petitioner, by suspending the operation of impugned letter No. CPPC/22-23/25 dated.29-3-2023 of the 2"^^ respondent Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SANTHAPUR SATYANARAYANA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI G.ARUN SHOWRI (CENTRAL GOVT. COUSEL) Counsel for the Respondents No.2, 3: SRI VENKATA RAMA RAO KOTA The Court made the following order: APHC010339362023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] TUESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRUUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 17501/2023 Between: 1.M SRINIVASA RAO, S/0. (LATE) M.TANDAVA KRISHHNA MURTHY D.N0.7-2-6/A. 10TH WARD NIDUBORLU (VI), PONNUR (M), GUNTUR DISTRICT. AGE 57 YEARS, OCC. EX-SERVICEMAN ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE PRINCIPAL CONTROLLER OF DEFENSE ACCOUNTS, 0/0. PRINCIPAL CONTROLLER OF DEFENSE ACCOUNTS, DRAUPADI GHAT, SARDAR BAZAR, PRAYAGRAJ ALLAHABAD , UTTAR PRADESH -211 014. 2.THE GENERAL MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, CENTRALIZEDPENSION PROCESSINGCENTER,( DEPT), NTR CIRCLE, PATAMATALANKA, D.NO. 64-9-2 K.S COMPLEX, KRISHNA DISTRICT (VIJAYAWADA) -521101. 3.THE BRANCH MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, PONNUR BRANCH (01460), INDHIRA GANDHI MUNICIPAL COMPLEX BUILDING, SPP ROAD, PONNUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 522124. ...RESPONDENT(S): A) (a) by declaring the entire action of the respondents, particularly the entire action of the respondents 2and 3 in issuing, the present impugne Lr.No. CPPC/22-23/25 dated. 29-3-2023 by the 1 respondent, which is addressed to the 3rd respondent ^ directing to recover wherein 3n 11 onoi a D t8,289/- w.e.f. 01-03-2023 to 1-2023 and Rs. 6,020/- in December 2023 from the petitioner I'PPnT'^ service pension account No. 10719853427 (PRO No. D/BC/73/97) ie., total amount of Rs. 1,70,614/- even without putting any prior notice nor opportunity, to the petitioner is as h ghly Illegal, arbitrary, unjust, improper without authority , vindictive attitude , opposed to article 300A and violative of all principles of including judgment of Hon'ble High court of Bombay dated nd set aside the impugned letter dated.29-3-2023 of the 2nd respondent, b) And consequently to direct the recover any amount from the pension account of the petitioner in furtherance of impugned letter no. CPPC/22-23/25 dated 29-3-2023 with a further direction by directed the respondents to credit the amounts which were recovered from the pension account of the petitioner, to enable the petitioner to get his pension which was drawing prior to the month of March 2023 and to pass such other order. respondents not to lA NO: 1 OF 20?.^ Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to direct the recover any amount from the pension account of the petitioner and re-credit the amounts which respondents not to were recovered from the pension account of the petitioner, by suspending the operation of impugned tetter No.CPPC/22-23/25 dated.29-3-2023 of the 2"- respondent and to pass such other order. 3 Counsel for the Petitioner; .SANTHAPUR SATYANARAYANA RAO Counsel for the Respondents): SHOWRKCENTRAL GOVT. COUSEL) 2.VENKATA RAMA RAO KOTA The Court made the following: 1 1.G.ARUN 1 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION No.175ni of 709“^ ORDER: 1. The present Writ Petition is filed to declare the impugned letter vide Lr.No.CPPC/22-23/25, dated 29.03.2023 issued by Respondent No.1 to Respondent No.3 directing for recovery of Rs.18,289/- v^.e.f. 01.03.2023 to 30.11.2023 and Rs.6,020/- in December, 2023 from the Petitioner’s army service pension account No. 10719853427 (PPO No.D/BC/73/97), totalling to an amount of Rs.1,70,614/-, without any prior notice, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The facts in brief are as follows; The Petitioner had joined in military service on 20.12.1985 and served upto 31.07.1996 as Sepoy. The Petitioner had to be discharged from service while working in Madaras Regiment due to the injury in the Srilanka war. After being discharged from the military, the Petitioner was being paid pension through Respondent No.3-bank vide pension account No. 10719853427. It is also stated that the Petitioner underwent bypass surgery during the year 2008 and taking continuous treatment at ECHS (Ex-servicemen Contributory Health Scheme), Guntur as he was physically 5 0 handicapped in the Srilanka war. On 03.04.2023, the Petitioner had his mobile regarding recovery from the received a message on pension amount. On enquiry, the Petitioner was informed about the dated 29.03.2023, issued by Respondent No.1 proposing to letter total amount of Rs.1,70,614/- i.e. Rs.18,289/- w.e.f 01.03.2023 to 30.11.2023 and Rs.6,020/- in December, 2023. Hence, the present Writ Petition came to be filed. recover a 3. Sri S. Satyanarayana Rao, learned counsel for the Petitioner would contend that similar issue fell for consideration before Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court in Shri Naini Gopal v. The Union of India and 3 others^ and a Judgment was rendered on 20.08.2020 setting aside the action of Respondents in recovering the amounts. In that context, the counsel submits that similar relief was sought to be extended to the Petitioner. 4. Though the Writ Petition was filed in the year 2023, no Counter Affidavit opposing the claim of the Petitioner has been filed till date. LD-VC-CW-665 of 2020 6 Therefore, this Court is inclined to dispose of the Writ Petition taking note of the Judgment of Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court in Shrl Naini Gopal’s case and the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Others v. Rafiq Mashi (White Washer) and Others^. 5. 6. In the above referred case, the Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court was considering a similar recovery of a retired Assistant Foreman of Ordinance factory. On contest, the recovery was quashed vide order dated 20.08.2020. Apart from that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rafiq Mashi’s case formulated certain situations, where recovery was made impermissible. Paragraph No. 18 thereof is extracted below; 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, 9 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: 18. (i) Recovery from the employees belonging to Class III and Class IV service (or Group C and Group D service). ^ (2015) 4 see 334 7 (ii) Recovery from the retired employees, or the employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery. (Hi) Recovery from the 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 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.” The above Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court holds good as on date and was followed in Thomas Daniel v. State of Kerala^ and Jogeshwar Sahoo and Others v. The District Judge, Cuttack'^ 7. Even assuming that the contention of Respondent No.1 vide letter dated 29.03.2023 is said to be correct; the pensionary benefits of 8. the Petitioner need not be stalled on account of the same. Further, in the light of the Judgments referred above, the recovery being ^ 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 438 “ 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 396 impermissible, the Respondent authorities have benefits due to the Petitioner forthwith. to pay retirement 9. Therefore, the Writ Petition is allowed with the following directions; (i) The Respondents No.1 is directed to repay the amounts of Rs.1,70,614 recovered from the petitioner's account bearing No. 107119853427 (PPO No.D/BC/73/97); (ii) The time calendared for compliance of the above direction i: two (2) months from the date of receipt of copy of this order; (iii) No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall IS 10. stand closed. Sd/- K TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SE FFICER To, 1. The Principal Controller of Defense Accounts, Draupadi Ghat, Sardar Bazar, Prayagraj Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh-211 014. 2. The General Manager, State Bank of India, Centralized Pension Processing Center, (Dept), NTR Circle, Patamatalanka, D.No. 64-9-2 K.S Complex, Krishna District. (Vijayawada) -521101. 3. The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Ponnur Branch (01460), Indhira Gandhi Municipal Complex Building, SPP Road, Ponnur, Guntur District. 522124. 4. One CC to SRI SANTHAPUR SATYANARAYANA RAO Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to SRI G. ARUN SHOWRI(CENTRAL GOVT. COUSEL) Advocate [OPUC] 6. One CC to SRI VENKATA RAMA RAO KOTA Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CD Copies Gsg Note:- The Operative Portion of the Order in “Paragraph No.9” i: modified as per Court Order dated 25.09.2025. Substitute this amended Order in place of earlier Order which was dispatched on 25.09.2025. IS Sd/- K TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR HIGH COURT DATED: 16/09/2025 25/09/2025 AMENDED ORDER WP NO. 17501 OF 2023 *1 0 8 OCT 2025 O Co rrentSectioo^^y ALLOWING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS