1 2026:CGHC:20387 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3080 of 2017  Smt. Kiran Patel W/o Late Shri Pramod Kumar Patel Aged About 35 Years Resident Of Ward No. 03, Purana Vrindavan Vidyalaya, Imalibhata, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund, Chattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Home, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Branch Manager, State Bank Of India, Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. 3. State Bank Of India, Centralized Pension Processing Centre Govindrapura Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Shashi Kumar Kushwaha, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Ajay Shrivastava, Advocate For State : Mr. Abhishek Singh, Panel Lawyer For Respondents No. 2 & 3 : Mr. Pankaj Singh, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 01.05 .2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the recovery (mentioned in Annexure P-1) and the same may be declared as illegal, in the interest of justice. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent to refund the recovered amount 2,50,000 + 10,000/- (from March 2017) and any other recovery in this regard with 18% interest, in the interest of justice. SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2026.05.07 14:28:40 +0530 2 10.3 Any other relief which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted.” 2. The facts in brief are that the husband of the petitioner Shri Pramod Kumar Patel was a Constable in the Police department, who died on 29.12.2008 in Naxalite operation. The petitioner, being wife of Late Pramod Kumar Patel, was being paid family pension through State Bank of India, Branch Mahasamund. In month of February, 2017, the petitioner was receiving family pension to the tune of Rs. 22,900/-, thereafter, her pension was reduced to Rs. 4,870/- without affording any opportunity of hearing and without assigning any reason and further order of recovery of Rs. 2,500/- per month from her account was initiated by the Bank authorities. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the decision of deduction of pension and recovery were initiated without affording any opportunity of hearing. He would contend that there was no misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner and, therefore, no amount from the pension can be deducted. He has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench in the matter of Surendra Singh vs. State of Chhattisgarh passed in WPS No. 1181 of 2017, wherein, the order of Bank authorities with regard to recovery of 7,06,149/- was set-aside on the ground that it was mistake on the part of the Bank authorities. He would pray to allow this petition. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 2 & 3 would submit that the petitioner was wrongly extended benefit of dearness allowance and when this mistake was detected by the Bank authorities, decision was taken to withdraw said benefit and recover amount of excess 3 payment. It is argued by Mr. Pankaj Singh that benefit of dearness allowance was extended to the petitioner pursuant to direction issued by the Treasury Accounts and Pension, District Treasury Office, North Bastar Kanker. It is also contended by Mr. Singh that an undertaking was given by the petitioner to the effect that any excess payment made to the pensioner would be refundable. He has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of High Court of Punjab and Haryana and Others vs. Jagdev Singh reported in (2016) 14 SCC 267. 5. Mr. Abhishek Singh, Panel Lawyer would submit that there is dispute between the petitioner and respondents No. 2 & 3. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 7. Admittedly, the petitioner is a pensioner. She is getting her pension through the State Bank of India, Branch Mahasamund. Prior to February, 2017 petitioner was getting family pension Rs. 22,900/-, thereafter, her pension was reduced to Rs. 4,870/- without affording any opportunity of hearing. A decision was also taken to recover Rs. 2,500/- per month from monthly pension. The decision was taken by the Bank authorities with regard to recovery and deduction of pension amount as petitioner was wrongly extended benefit of dearness allowance. It is not a case of the Bank that there was any misrepresentation or any fraud on the part of the petitioner rather said mistake was committed by the Bank authorities. The Bank has taken shelter on a memo issued by the Treasury, Accounts and Pension District Treasury Office, North Bastar Kanker, but before extending benefit based on 4 such document, the Bank authorities should have inquired into the entitlement of the petitioner. 8. With regard to undertaking given by the petitioner, Mr. Pankaj Singh has not placed any service rules or rules framed by the Bank with regard to undertaking. In the matter of Jagdev Singh (supra), recovery initiated by the State was sustained on the ground that undertaking was given according to service rules. 9. 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, 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:- 5 “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 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.” 10. The principles of law laid down in the above referred decisions would apply in the case of pensioner also, and she 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. 11. 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 6 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 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. 7 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. 12. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts the order of recovery, if any, (including decision of recovery) issued or taken by the Bank authorities is hereby quashed. The respondents No. 2 and 3 are directed to refund the recovered amount forthwith with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. 13. With the aforesaid observation(s), and direction(s), the instant petition is hereby disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE $iddhant