AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Hon'ble Shri N.K. Mody, J.—The prayer in the petition is to quash the order Annexure P/ 1, whereby recovery of Rs. 87,239/- has been initiated against the petitioner. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that husband of the petitioner Late Shri Bhagirath Solanki was retired on 31.12.2001 and died on 26.1.2003. It is submitted that thereafter family pension was released to the petitioner being widow. It is submitted that vide Annexure P/1 recovery of Rs. 87,239/- has been initiated against the petitioner for no fault of her. It is submitted that even if some excess payment is made to the petitioner for which petitioner is not at fault, reliance is placed on a decision in the matter of Shyam Babu Verma Vs. Union of India, reported in 1994 SCC (L&S) 683, wherein Hon'ble Apex Court held that since petitioner received the higher scale due to no fault of him, it shall only be just and proper not to recover any excess amount already paid to him. It is submitted that petition filed by the petitioner be allowed and the impugned order, whereby recovery has been initiated be quashed.
Shri R.C. Singhal, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 & 2, submits that husband of the petitioner was not in employment of the respondents No. 1 and 2. It is submitted that respondents No. 1 and 2 were holding the account of the deceased and after his death it is the account of petitioner in which pension was being credited. It is submitted that relationship between the petitioner and respondents No. 1 & 2 is of Banker and customer. It is submitted that if by mistake excess payment has been made by respondents No. 1 and 2, then the respondents No. 1 and 2 are entitled to recover the same and no advantage can be given to the petitioner on account of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Shyam Babu (supra). Reliance is placed on the decisions of this Court in the matter of Smt.Leela Bai in W.P. No. 495/2002 decided on 19.9.2006, Smt.Meera Bai Shinde W.P. No. 1597/2005 (S) decided on 19.4.2007 and in the matter of Smt.Ratan Bai Gehlot in WP(S) No. 3730/2009 decided on 22.3.2010, wherein after taking into consideration the law laid down in the matter of Shyam Babu, this Court held that no interference can be made into the order of recovery. It is submitted that petition be dismissed.
From perusal of the record it appears that petition was amended by the petitioner, wherein it is alleged that the alleged excess amount paid to the petitioner w.e.f. 1.1.2008 to 31.3.2010 amounting to Rs. 87,239/- has already been received by the respondents No. 1 and 2 from respondents No. 3 and 4. As per master Circular disbursement of payment by agency banks dated 1.7.2011 issued by the Reserve Bank of India Clause 35 lays down the refund of over payment of pension to the Government, which reads as under :
Government of India have advised us that the overpayments of pension made by the banks are not credited back to Government account by the banks in lump sum but are remitted in instalments as and when recovered from the pensioner. As this causes loss to the Government, all agency banks have been advised that whenever any excess/overpayment is detected the entire amount thereof should be credited to the Government account in lump sum immediately.
Since the relationship between the petitioner and respondents No. 1 and 2 is not the employer and employee but the relationship of banker and customer, therefore, law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Shyam Babu (supra) is not applicable and if excess payment is made by the respondents No. 1 and 2 then respondents No. 1 and 2 are entitled to recover the same from the petitioner and that cannot be denied on the ground that the amount is not paid by respondents No. 1 and 2 to respondents No. 3 and 4 as the same is payable as per Circular of Reserve Bank of India. In view of this petition filed by the petitioner has no merits and the same stands dismissed. However, keeping in view the fact that petitioner is a widow, therefore, facility of instalments is given to the petitioner. The amount paid in excess shall be recovered from the petitioner @ Rs. 1,000/- per month and no amount of interest shall be charged from the petitioner. With the aforesaid observations petition stands dismissed. No order as to costs.