1 2025:CGHC:56043 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1899 of 2020 Rajendra Kumar Bhushnam S/o E. C. Bhushnam, Aged About 70 Years, R/o Kushabhau Thakre, Ward No. 48, Dharampura No. 01, Jagdalpur, District- Bastar, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Tribal, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya New Raipur, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Assistant Commissioner Tribal Department, Jagdalpur, District- Bastar, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank, Branch Jagdalpur, District- Bastar, Chhattisgarh 4 - Joint Director, Family and Pension Jagdalpur, District- Bastar, Chhattisgarh Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title downloaded from CIS Periphery) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vinod Kumar Sharma, Advocate For Respondent/ : Mr. Rajeev Bharat, Government Advocate SHYNA AJAY Digitally signed by SHYNA AJAY DN: cn=SHYNA AJAY, o=PERSONAL, st=Chhattisgarh, c=IN 2 State For Respondent/ Bank Mr. Sharad Mishra, Advocate SB.: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order On Board 18/11/2025 1. This petition challenges the deduction of Rs.5000/- per month from the Family Pension for a period of 9 months from May 2019 to January 2020, due to excess payment. 2. Necessary facts of the case are that the petitioner has been receiving Family Pension after the death of his wife. The petitioner was paid Family Pension @ 50% per month for a period of 8 years, although he was entitled to receive it only for 7 years and thereafter, he became entitled to the reduced rate of 30% as Family Pension. For the period from May 2019 until January 2020, a total amount of Rs.45,000/- was paid in excess to the petitioner. This excess amount has since been recovered by the Bank in light of the subject Circular issued by the RBI. Hence, this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that since the petitioner’s wife was working as Accountant in the Tribal Department, which is a Class-III post, the case is covered by the parameters laid down in the judgment rendered in the matter of State of Punjab and others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334. He submits that in light of the 3 aforesaid judgment, recovery from employees belonging to Class- III is impermissible in law and even recovery from the retired employees or employees who are due to retire within one year has been held to be inequitable and harsh to the concerned employee. Learned counsel for the petitioner would place reliance on the matter of Branch Manager Allahabad Bank Vs. Smt. Sangita Mishra and another, (WA No.46/2019 decided on 16.12.2021) 2021: CGHC: 27300-DB, wherein the Division Bench of this Court has taken a view that even though there is a guideline issued by the RBI dated 17.3.2016, but such guideline has to be considered in light of the judgment(s) pronounced by the Hon’ble Supreme Court with regard to the permissibly or otherwise of recovery of amount from the employees. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respective respondents would support the recovery made by the concerned Bank on the ground that the Family Pension paid to the petitioner was in excess of his actual entitlement. They would further submit that as per the Pension Rules, the petitioner is only entitled to the reduced rate of pension at 30% after a period of 7 years, but pension @ 50% was erroneously paid for a period of 8 years. Further, in support of his contention, learned counsel for the Bank would place reliance on the judgment rendered in the matter of Anugrah Kiran Das Vs. State of Bank of India and two others reported in 2023 (4) MPLJ 604. 4 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents annexed along with the petition. 6. Indisputably, the petitioner is receiving a Family Pension for a Class-III employee and has been paid in excess of his entitlement. Though the petitioner is entitled to the reduced rate of pension after 7 years, but pension @ 50% continued to be paid even beyond that period. When such fact came to the notice of the concerned Bank, the concerned Bank Manager, as per the Circular of the RBI, initiated action for recovery of the aforesaid amount in installments. The Pension Payment Order (PPO) has been issued in favour of the petitioner, explicitly specifying the terms of pension payment and the petitioner was fully aware that he was entitled to pension only in accordance with the PPO. When the concerned Bank employee, due to oversight or negligence or any other reason, made an excess payment, it is always expected of an honest citizen to refund the amount credited to his account and immediately bring the matter to the notice of the concerned Bank. Moreover, to prevent any loss to the concerned Bank, the RBI has issued the Circular/Guidelines on 17.3.2016 regarding the disbursement and recovery of the excess payments. 7. Evidently, no ground has been raised regarding any hardship to the family pensioner. 8. Considering the totality of the circumstances of the case and the fact that the petitioner has already received the excess pension 5 amount, which has duly been adjusted by the concerned Bank and since no material facts have been brought on record regarding any hardship, this Court deems it appropriate to grant a further opportunity to the petitioner. In this respect, the petitioner may file a representation along with an affidavit before the concerned Bank, explaining the details of all his movable and immovable properties held by him as also his hardship, if any. Upon receipt of such representation, the State Head of the concerned Punjab National Bank is expected to take an appropriate decision, considering the petitioner’s financial condition. Ordered accordingly. 9. It is further observed that if the petitioner files a representation in the above manner before the concerned Branch Manager within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the concerned Branch Manager, in turn, shall forward the same to the State Head, who shall decide the same within a further period of 2 months of the receipt of the aforesaid representation. 10. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the Petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Shyna