Smt. Balveer Kaur vs State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur and Others

Govind Mathur, J.—By this petition for writ, the petitioner is seeking direction to declare the letter 10.1.2008 (Annex.-3) and the statement of dues Annexure-4 illegal. By the letter Annexure-3 dated 10.1.2008, the Chief Manager, State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Public Park Branch, Sriganganagar has resettled the petitioner''s pension after calculating the excess payment made to her during the period from 27.5.2000 to 31.12.2007.

In brief, facts of the case are that the petitioner''s husband Shri Kuldeep Singh retired from service on 31.5.1993 and he died on 20.4.96. Family pension, as per Rules was allowed to the petitioner and a pension payment order was accordingly issued, copy whereof is available on record as Annexure-R/1. In pension payment order, it is clearly stated that the petitioner shall be entitled for family pension in tune of Rs. 3330/-from 1.9.1996 to 26.5.2000 and thereafter she will be entitled for sum of Rs. 1820/- against family pension. The respondent Bank despite specific assertion aforesaid made payment of pension to the petitioner in tune of Rs. 3330/- even after 26.5.2000. On knowing about the erroneous excess payment, the Bank decided to effect recovery of the amount so paid. Being aggrieved by the same, this petition for writ is preferred.

The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that whatever amount paid to the petitioner is because of error on the part of the Bank employees and as such, the petitioner cannot be held responsible for the same. It is also stated that no mis-representation was made by the petitioner for getting higher pension and as such, in view of the judgments of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Union of India and Others Vs. Rekha Majhi, and Sahib Ram Vs. State of Haryana and Others, no recovery could have been made from her. Reliance is also placed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner upon judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Premlata Gaur v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. reported in RLW 2000 (4) Raj. 608 and Single Bench judgment of this Court in Pukha Ram v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. reported in 2005 (8) RDD 3324 (Raj.).

Per contra, the stand of the respondents is that under the PPO Annexure-3, it was quite clear that the petitioner shall be entitled for family pension in tune of Rs. 3330/- up to 26.5.2000 and thereafter, payment of family pension was required to be made in tune of Rs. 1820/- per month. Due to some error, the change aforesaid in the payment of family pension was not made and the petitioner too never pointed out this error. On knowing about erroneous excess payment made, the Bank decided to effect the recovery of amount paid in excess. It is also stated by Shri P.K. Lohra appearing on behalf of the respondent Bank that on the amount paid in excess, no interest is charged. While placing reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Abdul Salam and Anr. v. Maharana Pratap University and Ors. reported in 2004 WLC (Raj.) UC 621 it is stated by the learned Counsel for the respondent Bank that if the recovery sought to be made is quashed, then the excess payment made to the petitioner shall be nothing but an ''unjust enrichment''.

Learned Counsel for the respondent also placed reliance upon Division Bench judgment of Hon''ble Kerala High Court in V. Moidu v. State of Kerala and Ors. reported in 2008 LAB.I.C. 1028 wherein in similar circumstances, recovery of payment of excess amount from pension was held valid in view of Rule 90(7) (a) of the Kerala Service Education Rules, 1959 and analogous provision under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 i.e. Rule 62 is pointed out by the learned Counsel for the respondent.

I have heard and after examining rival contentions, it is not in dispute that an excess payment of family pension was made to the petitioner. It is also not in dispute that so far as respondent Bank is concerned, that is only a disbursing agency. The pension amount, as a matter of fact, is required to be given by the State Government to the Bank and Bank in its turn, is required to disburse the same. The amount given to the Bank for payment of pension is as per pension payment order Annexure-R/1 wherein a specific assertion is made regarding payment of family pension in tune of Rs. 1820/-w.e.f. 26.5.2000. The petitioner from the day first, was aware of the fact that after 26.5.2000 she will be entitled to receive sum of Rs. 1820/-as family pension in place of Rs. 3330/-. The petitioner never pointed out to the Bank regarding excess payment though she was knowing this fact in view of the assertions made in pension payment order itself. As such, it is wrong on the part of the petitioner to say that there was no effort on her part in receiving the payment in excess.

So far as judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Ors. v. Rekha Majhi; Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana and Ors. are concerned, those are the cases where the excess payment was made by the employer and not by the disbursing authority as in the present case. Similarly, in the case of Premlata Gaur v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (supra), the Division Bench of this Court was dealing with the case where the employer made the excess payment. In the present case the petitioner was aware of the fact that the Bank, which is nothing but only a disbursing authority, made excess payment and this fact was never pointed out by her to the Bank Authorities. No additional financial burden can be placed on the disbursing authority then the amount received for disbursement.

In the case of Pukha Ram, Single Bench of this Court was dealing with the matter where the respondent employer was making recovery of the amount which was not at all paid erroneously. A specific finding in that case was given by this Court that the amount sought to be recovered was rightly paid to the petitioner.

I am absolutely in agreement with the respondents that, if the petitioner be permitted to retain the amount paid to her in excess after 26.5.2000 then that shall not be nothing but unjust enrichment as held by this Court in the case of Abdul Salam (supra).

In the factual and legal position narrated above, I am of the considered opinion that no error is committed by the respondent in making the order for effecting recovery from the petitioner''s pension, thus, the petition is having no merit, as such, the same is dismissed.

No order as to cost.