1 2026:CGHC:25550-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 8156 of 2024 1. Shekh Jalil S/o Late Shekh Chhotu Aged About 75 Years Retired Pointsman A/secr/bsp, R/o Taiyaba Chowk, Near Ration Shop, Talapara, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 495001 ... Petitioner versus 1. Union of India General Manager, South East Central Railway, New GM Building, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 495004 2. Chief Personnel Officer South East Central Railway, Divisional Office, Personnel Branch Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 495004 3. Senior AFA/pension South East Central Railway, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 495004 4. State Bank Of India Through Its Branch Manager, Agriculture Development Branch, Shivdalare Mishra Complex, Vyapar Vihar Road, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 495001 5. Chief Manager Centralized Pension Payment Cell, Govindpura, Near Iti, Bhopal Madhya Pradesh 462023 ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. A.V. Sridhar, Advocate (through video conferencing) with Mr. Rahul Sharma, Advocate For Respondent No.1 to 3 : Mr Rishabh Singh Deo, Advocate For Respondent No.4 & 5 : Ms. Vartika Shrivastava, Advocate on behalf of Mr. PR Patankar, Advocate SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Digitally signed by SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI 2 DB: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Parth Prateem Sahu,J & Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sachin Singh Rajput, j Order on Board Per Parth Prateem Sahu, J 19.06.2026 1. Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 24.8.2023 passed in Original Application No.203/769/2017 by which learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, Circuit Sitting at Bilaspur has dismissed the original application filed by petitioner against recovery from his pension towards excess amount paid to him. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that petitioner retired from the service on attaining the age of superannuation while working as Pointsman in South East Central Railways (SECR). After retirement, pension payment order for payment of pension came to be issued in favour of petitioner and in terms thereof, pension amount was being credited every month into account of petitioner till April, 2016. However, on receipt of pension slip for the month of May 2016, petitioner was surprised to know that a deduction of Rs.4,000/- has been made from his pension. Upon enquiry, petitioner was informed by respondent Bank authorities that a recovery of Rs.3,79,611/-, which was paid in excess to him due to clerical error, is to be made from the pension of petitioner and to be returned to respondent SECR. A sum of Rs.1,15,963/- to be received by petitioner 3 towards arrears was also deducted by respondent Bank and returned to respondent SECR. Petitioner preferred an original application before the Tribunal with a prayer to quash the notice dated 14.06.2016 and direction to respondents not to make any recovery from his pension and also to refund the amount deducted from the pension of petitioner. The Tribunal vide order impugned dismissed the original application of petitioner on the ground that petitioner has furnished an undertaking that in case any excess payment is made, same shall be recovered from him, therefore, he is bound by undertaking and as such, action of respondents is correct. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner would argue that the impugned action of the respondent Bank in recovering huge amount from petitioner's pension without affording opportunity of hearing and without issuing any show-cause notice, is illegal and arbitrary. He submits that petitioner stood retired from service on 31.8.2009 and the recovery from his pension is initiated from May 2016, which is contrary to provision of Rule 1023 of the Indian Railways Accounts Code Part-1, according to which, check of correctness of past emoluments should not go back to a period earlier than a maximum of 24 months preceding the retirement. He next contended that the recovery has been made from the petitioner on the basis of alleged undertaking furnished by the petitioner. However, the 4 undertaking, if any, submitted by petitioner during his service tenure does not give any authority to the respondents to recover excess amount paid to the petitioner due to clerical error. He further submits that excess payment is not made to petitioner because of any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of petitioner, hence, recovery of amount, if any paid in excess, cannot be made from petitioner. Recovery is made without giving any opportunity of hearing and therefore patently illegal being in violation of principles of natural justice. He lastly submits that petitioner is a low-paid employee and therefore recovery from the pension of the petitioner is also not permissible in view of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in case of State of Punjab Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334. 4. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 to 3 opposes submissions of learned counsel for petitioner and submits that excess payment has been made to petitioner due to clerical error and petitioner has also given undertaking for recovery of amount, if paid in excess to petitioner. He submits that while recovering excess payment made to the petitioner, financial condition of the petitioner has been taken care of and recovery from pension of petitioner is adjusted in easy installments so that petitioner can also survive on the pension which he is getting. 5 5. Learned counsel for respondent Bank, referring to the undertaking, Annexure R4-4, would submit that petitioner was clearly informed at the inception that any payment found to have been made in excess would be required to be refunded and in turn, petitioner agrees by furnishing undertaking to refund or to permit adjustment of any amount to which he is not entitled. This undertaking is sufficient in law to sustain the recovery and takes the case of petitioner outside the line of authority which restrains recovery on equitable considerations. He further submits that petitioner was duly intimated vide letter dated 30.4.2016 that excess amount of pension for the period from 01.09.2009 to 30.4.2016 due to incorrect application of Dearness Allowance, is to be recovered from his pension. Recovery is not effected in lump-sum but through easy installments. He submits that public money paid by mistake is ordinarily recoverable and erroneous disbursement of public funds cannot be treated as irrecoverable merely because mistake originated with the authority. In support of his submissions, he places reliance on decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Chandi Prasad Uniyal & Ors. v. State of Uttranchal reported in (2012) 8 SCC 417. 6. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents available in record of writ petition. 6 7. It is not in dispute that petitioner retired from Railways on 31.8.2009 as Pointsman-A, which is stated to be a Group-D post, his pension was commenced from 1.9.2009. The discrepancy in payment of excess pension amount to the petitioner for the period from 1.9.2009 to 30.4.2016 on account of wrong calculation of Dearness Allowance was detected and intimated to petitioner vide letter dated 30.4.2016 (Annexure R4-1) and thereafter recovery from the pension of petitioner started from May 2016 i.e. after a prolonged period of seven years from the date of retirement of the petitioner. It is also not a matter of dispute between the parties that the payment of Dearness Allowance to the petitioner was not based on any misrepresentation or fraud on his part. It is also not substantiated by documentary evidence on behalf of respondent bank that petitioner had knowledge that the amount that was being paid to him was more than what he was entitled to. 8. In case of Col. B.J.Akkara v. Government of India, reported in 2006 11 SCC 709, Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under: "28. Such relief, restraining back recovery 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 7 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." 9. In case of Syed Abdul Qadir v. State of Bihar, reported in (2009) 3 SCC 475 Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as follows:- "59. Undoubtedly, the excess amount that has been paid to the appellant teachers was not because of any misrepresentation or fraud on their part and the appellants also had no knowledge that the amount that was being paid to them was more than what they were entitled to. It would not be out of place to mention here that the Finance Department had, in its counter- affidavit, admitted that it was a bona fide mistake on their part. The excess payment made was the result of wrong interpretation of the Rule that was 8 applicable to them, for which the appellants cannot be held responsible…..." 10. In WPS No.88/2025, parties being Smt. Vimla Singh vs State of Chhattisgarh & ors, respondent Bank sought to recover excess amount of pension made to petitioner therein between the period 12.8.2009 tp 31.3.2024. The Coordinate Bench vide order dated 1.4.2025 set aside order of recovery on the ground that alleged excess amount has not been received by petitioner by playing a fraud, directed the respondents therein not to recover any amount from the pension of petitioner therein and further directed to refund the amount recovered. Relevant paras of the order dated 1.4.2025 is quoted herein below:- “5. It is not in dispute that the husband of the petitioner retired from service in the year 2002 and died in the year 2007 and since then, the petitioner is getting the family pension and using the same for her expanses. All of a sudden, after a period of one and a half decade, the respondent/bank hold the bank account of the petitioner stating that the excess payment has been paid to the petitioner and the same is required to be recovered. The contention of the respondent does not found force as the payment of alleged excess amount has not been received by the petitioner by playing a fraud. 6.In the matter of Chandi Prasad Uniyal (supra), the issue was relating to excess payment of salary 9 whereas the present case relating to family pension of a widow of the deceased employee and hence, the reliance placed by the learned State counsel is not applicable to the facts of the present case.” Said order of the learned writ Court was put to challenge by filing WA No.533/2025 and said appeal was dismissed by Division Bench vide order dated 31.7.2025. 11. In case at hand, indisputably excess dearness allowance, payable on pension, commenced to be paid erroneously in the year 2009. The same was sough to be recovered in 2016 i.e. after a period of 07 years. Excess amount that has been paid to petitioner was not because of any misrepresentation or fraud on his part or he had knowledge about excess payment. Respondent Bank in its reply has admitted that excess payment was made due to clerical error Further, there is long delay in identifying the error in payment of Dearness Allowance, payable on pension, to petitioner. 12. In case of State of Punjab and Others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Others, reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334, Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with issue of recovery from employees/retired employees, has held recovery of excess payment made to Group-C and Group-D to be impermissible. One of the consideration for setting aside the order /notice to recovery is equity and to save the employees 10 from financial hardship. Relevant portion of the decision in Rafiq Masih (supra) reads as under:- "8. As between two parties, if a determination is rendered in favour of the party, which is the weaker of the two, without any serious detriment to the other (which is truly a welfare State), the issue resolved would be in consonance with the concept of justice, which is assured to the citizens of India, even in the Preamble of the Constitution of India. The right to recover being pursued by the employer, will have to be compared, with the effect of the recovery on the employee concerned. If the effect of the recovery from the employee concerned would be, more unfair, more wrongful, more improper, and more unwarranted, than the corresponding right of the employer to recover the amount, then it would be iniquitous and arbitrary, to effect the recovery. In such a situation, the employee's right would outbalance, and therefore eclipse, the right of the employer to recover. 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 herein above, we may, as a ready reference, summarise the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers would be impermissible in law: (i) xxxx (ii) xxxx (iii) xxxx 11 (iv) xxxx (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.” 13. The Full Bench of High Court of Calcutta in WA No.10545/2020 (Renuka Sarkar vs The State of West Bengal & ors) and other connected appeals, decided on 30.6.2023, while answering the question ‘whether a Bank, being the disbursing authority of pension to a retired employee or his family member, can be brought within the fold of the Supreme Court decision in Rafiq Masih (supra) has observed thus:- “18. In respect of reference this Court feels that the Judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court passed in State of Punjab and ors. Vs Rafiq Masih (white washer) and ors. Reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 encompasses all the interested parties in respect of payment of pension and receipt of pension. Thus, the bank that is the disbursing authority and all the pensioners including the persons receiving family pension are fall within the ambit of the ratio decidendi laid down in the aforesaid Judgment….” (emphasis supplied) 12 14. Therefore, in light of ratio laid down in above decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court; the order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court, which is affirmed by the Division Bench, as also order of the Full Bench of High Court of Calcutta and in the given circumstances, this Court is of the view that recovery of excess pension discovered after lapse of more 07 years would be iniquitous and arbitrary, and as such, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 15. So far as submission of learned counsel for respondent Bank that petitioner has furnished undertaking before the respondent bank is concerned, petitioner was a Group-D employee in the Railways, might not be knowing the consequences and implications of undertaking furnished by him before the Bank. It is also not contended before this Court that petitioner had knowledge that the amount that was being paid to him was more than what he was entitled to or on account of any misrepresentation or fraud played by petitioner, excess pension was being paid to him. Thus, considering that petitioner is a Group -D employee not aware of the consequence or implications of giving an undertaking and excess payment made solely on account of latches and fault on the part of the respondent-Bank without there being any misrepresentation or fraud having been committed on the part of the petitioner herein, in the opinion of this Court, 13 merely because petitioner has furnished an undertaking, which is undated stereotyped and general in nature, the bank authorities cannot be allowed to recover alleged excess amount from petitioner. 16. The Full Bench of High Court of Madhya Pradesh in case of The State of Madhya Pradesh and others vs. Jagdish Prasad Dubey, reported in 2024 Vol.II MPLJ 198, has observed that undertaking given by an employee or obtained by the employer is not enforceable. 17. The Division Bench of this Court in WA No.264/2020 (State of CG vs Labha Ram Dhruv), decided on 22.9.2021, while considering the issue of undertaking, has held that giving of such an undertaking is not a voluntary act and recovery on that basis, therefore, cannot be sustained. Relevant portion of decision in Labha Ram’s case (supra) reads thus:- “9.In the case at hand, the Revision of Pay Rules, 2009 and 2017 do not make any enabling provision reserving option for the employer to seek refund of the amount paid in excess, by making the employee to furnish an undertaking. Even if we conclude, for the sake of arguments, that even in the absence of enabling provision under the Rules, undertaking given by the employee would operate, the fact remains that against the classes of employees against whom recovery would be impermissible in law, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the 14 matter of Rafiq Masih (Supra), recovery from the employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV service (or Group 'C' and Group 'D' service) would still be impermissible in law. Meaning thereby that even when undertaking is submitted by the employee, but he otherwise belongs to Class-III and Class-IV service, and the amount has been paid more than 5 years back, the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rafiq Masih (Supra) would still hold the field in favour of such employees, because the judgment in the matter of Rafiq Masih (Supra) has not been overruled, but only clarified, by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its later judgment in the matter of Jagdev Singh, Supra” 18. Needless to mention here that a pensioner receives pension on the bona fide belief that amount credited to his/her account has been correctly calculated by the competent authorities. After years of continuous payment, pensioner arranges his financial affairs and day-to-day expenses on the assumption that the amount received is lawfully payable. Thus, any attempt to recover excess wrong payment would cause undue hardship to him. Hence, I am of the considered view that any recovery after lapse of long period would cause undue hardship to petitioner; therefore, it would be iniquitous if this Court does not extend protection to him. 15 19. For the foregoing reasons and discussions, writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 24.8.2023 (Annexure P-1) is hereby set aside. Original Application is allowed and the notice dated 14.6.2016 (Annexure P-1 in original application) is quashed. Respondents are directed not to recover any amount from the pension of petitioner. Respondent-Bank is directed to refund the entire amount to petitioner which has been recovered within a period of 04 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Sd/- Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Judge roshan/-