Sharda Gupta vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ld. And Ors

The applicant has filed this OA, seeking the following reliefs;-

"(a) to grant the case of the applicant squarely covered in all respect and she is entitled for return of the deducted amount/debited amount of Rs.4,60,639/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of debited amount in the account of the applicant and the applicant is also praying the similar relief which has been granted by the Hon:ble Supreme Court in the cases as mentioned in "Supra".

(b) to grant the revised seventh pay commission scale family pension to the applicant as similarly being given to the other family pensioners of same designation/same department alongwith all consequential benefits.

(c) to grant such relief/compensation for her mental torture, pain and agony as may be prayed for as the Court may deem fit and proper.

(d) to award the costs of the case.*

The applicant of this OA has mainly challenged the order dated 21.12.2015 of the respondents on the ground that they have recovered the amount of Rs.4,60,640/-from her saving bank account without giving her any notice. In this context, the applicant has relied upon the judgment of the Hon"ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. Vs. Sh. Ramdhan Gupta & Anr. in which Hon"ble High Court, while relying upon judgment of the Hon"ble Supreme Court in the case of Rafiq Masih, has held in Para 11 that so far as employee belonging to Class III and Class IV services (Group C and D services) are concerned, recovery was declared to be impermissible in all situations, where excess payment had been made to them by the employer, for which they were not responsible in any way. The applicant has submitted that since the deceased husband of the applicant was a Group "C" employee and the overpayment being made without any misrepresentation made by her, her case is squarely covered by the aforesaid said judgment.

The respondents, while contesting the OA, has filed their CA. They have contended in their CA that the applicant has chosen not to assail the order dated 21.12.2015 or asked for its quashing and further contended that unless the same is quashed and set aside, no relief could be granted to the applicant.

The respondents have also submitted that on audit of scrolls of SBI for the month of February, 2013, it was noticed that the applicant was disbursed family pension of Rs.25,773/- against eligible amount of Rs.19,011/-. They have also contended that similarly, it was noticed that she was disbursed family pension of Rs.32,380/-against eligible amount of Rs.22,459/- for the month of August, 2015. They have submitted that these discrepancies were brought to the notice of SBI by O/o CCA,UP(W) Telecom, Circle Meerut, the nodal office of the Department of Telecommunication )DOT) for reimbursement of pension amount to pension disbursing bank and accordingly, the pension disbursing Bank )SBI), while noticing the aforesaid discrepancies, had effected the recovery of Rs.4,60,639/- from the pension account of the applicant. The respondents have thus submitted that it is the pension disbursing bank who committed error by paying excess family pension to the applicant and then making recovery of the overpaid amount from the saving account of the applicant. They have categorically stated in the CA that the respondents have neither decreased the family pension at any point nor were they responsible in paying excess family pension. Hence, it is the pension disbursing bank which was paying excess family pension than what the applicant was actually entitled to as per revised PPO. They have also submitted that the applicant has not impleaded the SBI as a necessary party in the array of respondents. They have also relied upon the decision of the CAT dated 22.03.2018 in OA 180/2017 in which it was held that the overpaid amount paid by the bank by mistake is not covered under the judgment of the Hon:ble Supreme court in the case of State of Punjab ' Ors. Vs. Rafiq Masih and the concerned Bank can make recoveries. The respondents have thus prayed for dismissal of the OA.,

From the above, quite clearly, the overpayment of family pension to the applicant was being made by the disbursing bank (SBI) over the amount authorized through revised PPO dated 03.02.2011 as shown from Annexure P-2 of the OA filed by the applicant herself and when these discrepancies were brought to the notice of concerned Bank, they have effected the recovery and recovered the overpaid amount as per the revised PPO dated 03.02.2011 which is not disputed by the applicant at all in her OA. Hence, it is the not respondents, who have made the overpaid amount mistakenly rather it is the concerned disbursing bank which had committed the error inadvertently in making the excess payment. As such, the contentions of the respondents that the recovery being effected by the disbursing party (SBI), which is the necessary party on account of overpayment being made by it inadvertently, is found to be correct. We have further examined the judgment in the case of MTNL (supra) and found it not being applicable to the facts of the present case, as the overpayments were made by the concerned disbursing bank and not the by the respondents herein.

In view of the above factual situation, the respondents cannot be held responsible either for payment of excess amount or recovery of the overpaid amount. Accordingly, the OA is dismissed being devoid of merit and for non joinder of necessary party. No order as to costs.