1 2026:CGHC:13831 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1978 of 2022  Amola Bai W/o Late Ramkhilawan Sharma Aged About 72 Years Village - Devkirari, Post Office - Bitkuli, Tahsil - Bilha, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Revenue Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Mantralaya, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2. The Manager, Central Bank Of India Branch - Bilha, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 3. The Senior Treasury Officer, District Treasury, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Ms. Diksha Jaiswal, Advocate For State : Mr. Abhishek Singh, P.L. For Respondents No. 2 : Mr. Anand Shukla, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order On Board 23.3.2026 1) By way of this petition, petitioner has sought following reliefs:- 10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case from possession of the respondents for its kind perusal; Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2026.03.25 17:18:04 +0530 2 10.2 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a suitable writ/order/direction the respondent bank to stop illegal deduction made from the family pension account and return the amount already deduction illegally. 10.3 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a suitable writ/order/direction commanding the respondent authorities to pay the petitioner the part of family pension deducted for recovery of excess payment with suitable interest; 10.4 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, as if may deem fit and appropriate. 10.5 Cost of the petition my also be given. 2) Facts of present case are that petitioner’s husband, namely, Ramkhilawan Sharma was working on the post of Patwari ; he stood retired from services on 15.7.1989 and thereafter, he was receiving pension. Due to some mistake, petitioner’s husband was paid higher pension from March, 2014 till February, 2018 to the tune of Rs. 4,52,592/- and when such mistake was detected, respondent-Bank approached the petitioner, who signed an undertaking, whereby bank was permitted to deduct Rs. 4,500/- per month from the pension. However, petitioner’s husband died on 27.4.2021 but on the basis of said undertaking, respondent- bank continued to deduct Rs. 4,500/- from the family pension. Petitioner, who is the wife of deceased employee has filed this petition challenging the illegal deduction from the family pension. 3) Ms. Diksha Jaiswal, counsel for the petitioner submits that though petitioner’s husband signed an undertaking but it lost its efficacy after his death and it cannot be used against his wife, who is 3 receiving family pension, thus deduction of Rs. 4,500/- per month from family pension is illegal and contrary to the law. She further submits that petitioner is a 72 years old lady, whose means of survival is family pension, therefore a direction may be issued to respondent-Bank to restore the family pension and make payment of the amount already recovered from family pension. 4) On the other hand, Mr. Anand Shukla, counsel appearing for respondent-Bank submits that due to mistake pension of petitioner’s husband was fixed at higher side and it continued from month of March, 2014 till February, 2018, therefore a decision was taken by the Bank to recover it and an undertaking was signed by Lt. Ramkhilawan Sharma during his lifetime. He further submits that a separate certificate was given by Lt. Ramkhilawan Sharma to adjust the excess payment from his successor(s), therefore this petition is misconceived and deserves to be dismissed. 5) Learned State counsel fairly submits that there is dispute between petitioner and the bank. 6) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record with utmost circumspection. 7) Admittedly, husband of petitioner was a pensioner, who was receiving monthly pension. It is the case of respondent-bank that excess pension was paid to him from March, 2014 till February, 2018 to the tune of Rs. 4,52,592/-, therefore a decision was taken to recover the said amount. It is not in dispute that Ramkhilawan 4 Sharma signed an undertaking, which permitted the bank to recover Rs. 4,500/- per month from his pension. He died on 27.4.2021. After death of Ramkhilawan Sharma the undertaking can’t be used against his successor and recovery of excess pension paid to Ramkhilawan Sharma during his lifetime cannot be recovered/ adjusted against the family pension, which is being paid to the petitioner. 8) In view of the aforesaid discussion, in my opinion, the decision taken by respondent-Bank to recover/ adjust the excess pension paid to the petitioner’s husband from the family pension is illegal and arbitrary. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and respondent- bank is directed to restore the family pension of petitioner and refund the amount already recovered from the family pension, preferably within period of 30 days from today alongwith interest @ 6% p.a. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE A j i n k y a