1 2026:CGHC:5180-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 99 of 2026 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. ... Appellant(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 ...Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Ajay Shrivastava, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Praveen Das, Additional Advocate General. For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Sharad Mishra, Advocate. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2026.01.30 17:35:45 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 30 .01.2026 1. Heard Mr. Ajay Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Praveen Das, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State and Mr. Sharad Mishra, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 3. 2. The present intra-Court appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 18.11.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 1899 of 2020 (Rajendra Kumar Bhushnam vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner was disposed off. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is a citizen of India and is entitled to enjoy all the fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution of India, including the right to equality, livelihood, and protection against arbitrary action by the State and its instrumentalities. It is further submitted that the wife of the appellant, Late Smt. Chhipra Saha, was working as an Accountant (Class-III employee) in the Tribal Department and unfortunately died in harness on 01.05.2011. After her demise, the appellant was duly sanctioned family pension and had been regularly receiving the same from June 2011. 3 4. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that, suddenly and arbitrarily, with effect from 31.05.2019, an amount of Rs.5,000/- per month was deducted from the appellant’s family pension without issuance of any written order, show-cause notice, or affording any opportunity of hearing. Such deduction is wholly illegal, unconstitutional, and violative of the principles of natural justice. It is submitted that no authority, including the disbursing bank, has the power to recover any amount directly from pension without lawful authorization. The unilateral deduction, without consent of the account holder and without a recovery order, amounts to unauthorized deprivation of property. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the appellant submitted a detailed representation on 13.02.2020 objecting to the illegal recovery; however, no action was taken and no reasoned decision was communicated. It is contended that in similar circumstances, where recovery was sought by the disbursing bank, the learned Single Judge as well as the Hon’ble Division Bench have consistently held such recoveries to be impermissible. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment in Branch Manager, Allahabad Bank vs. Smt. Sunita Mishra (WA No. 46 of 2019), wherein the recovery order was quashed. The Hon’ble Division Bench, relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab & Others vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334, categorically held that no recovery can be made from the legal heirs of a Class-III employee, and that even RBI guidelines must be interpreted 4 in light of the said judgment. 6. It is further submitted that the aforesaid legal position has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Division Bench in WA No. 18 of 2022 (Bhartiya Thakur vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others) and WA No.164 of 2017 (State Bank vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), thereby settling the issue beyond doubt. Despite specific reliance on the judgment in Smt. Sunita Mishra (supra), the learned Single Judge failed to consider the binding precedents and merely directed the appellant to submit a representation, which is contrary to settled law. It is further submitted that the appellant’s pension is protected under Rule 9 of the Chhattisgarh Pension Rules, 1976 (for short, ‘Rules of 1976’), which permits recovery after retirement only on the ground of grave negligence or proved misconduct and that too by the Governor, after following due procedure. In the present case, there is neither any allegation nor inquiry nor finding of misconduct, yet the bank has proceeded to recover the amount arbitrarily. Further, under Rule 66 of the Rules of 1976, no recovery can be made from pension after six months, and any recovery thereafter can only be made by adopting proper legal procedure such as filing a civil suit. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the consistent judicial view, including judgments of this Court, prohibits recovery from pension after the prescribed period, particularly when the pensioner or family pensioner is not at fault. Therefore, the impugned order dated 18.11.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 1899 of 5 2020 is illegal, arbitrary, erroneous, and contrary to settled law, and is liable to be set aside. 8. Per contra, learned State counsel and learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3 supported the impugned order and submitted that the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition after due consideration of the material on record and that no interference is warranted in the intra-Court appeal. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have carefully examined the pleadings and documents placed on record. 10. Indisputably, the appellant is in receipt of family pension in respect of a Class-III employee and has been paid an amount in excess of his entitlement. Though the appellant was entitled to a reduced rate of pension after seven years, pension at the rate of 50% continued to be paid even beyond the said period. When this fact came to the notice of the concerned bank, the Bank Manager, in accordance with the RBI Circular, initiated recovery of the excess amount in installments. The Pension Payment Order issued in favour of the petitioner clearly specifies the terms of pension payment, and the petitioner was aware that he was entitled only to such pension as sanctioned under the PPO. When excess payment is made due to oversight or negligence, an honest citizen is expected to refund the excess amount and bring the same to the notice of the bank. To prevent loss to banks, the RBI issued Circular/Guidelines dated 17.03.2016 governing recovery of excess payments. 6 11. It is evident that no specific ground regarding financial hardship has been raised by the family pensioner. 12. Considering the totality of the circumstances and the fact that the appellant has received excess pension, which has already been adjusted by the concerned bank, and in the absence of material regarding hardship, this Court deems it appropriate to grant the appellant an opportunity to submit a representation explaining his financial condition. 13. Accordingly, the writ appeal is disposed off with liberty to the appellant to file a representation before the concerned Branch Manager within a period of 15 days from today. Upon receipt of such representation, the concerned Branch Manager shall consider and decide the same within a period of two weeks, in accordance with law. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan