Basana Ganguly vs Union Of India & Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 4560 Cal

   04.
31.7.2023
   S.D.

                                   W.P.A. 6644 of 2023

                                   Basana Ganguly
                                          Vs.
                                 Union of India & Ors.



                  Mr. Mrinmoy Kumar Sahu
                                                     ..For the petitioner
                  Mr. Kaustav Chandra Das
                                                     ...For the U.O.I.
                  Ms. Parna Roy Choudhury
                                                     ...For the PNB

                  The petitioner's case is that she is entitled to payment of

            family pension since her husband retired as an employee of

            Ordinance Factory, Dumdum in 1999. Prayer for revision of

            his pension was made on July 28, 2017.         The petitioner's

            husband passed away on May 1, 2021.             Thereafter, the

            petitioner immediately informed the factum of death to the

            Manager, PNB on May 7, 2021. The petitioner was a joint

            holder in the pension account of her husband. The petitioner

            informed the Manager to take necessary steps in the matter.

                  By a letter dated June 16, 2021, the petitioner wrote to

            the General Manager, Ordinance Factory/respondent no. 8 to

look into the matter regarding revision of pension of her

husband. She prayed that new basic pension from 2016

should be paid to her husband along with arrears thereof.

The petitioner again wrote to the Manager, PNB on

June 16, 2021 and informed that she was residing with her

daughter at Nagpur. She prayed for the pension slips to be

sent to her from January 2021 till June 2021. Thereafter, the

petitioner on February 15, 2022 informed the Chief Manager,

CPPC, PNB, Kolkata that she has made the necessary

application for conversion of the pension of her husband to

payment of family pension to her. Despite several requests,

she was unable to put in the necessary documents required for

such disbursal due to lack of cooperation on the part of the

staff of the Bank. She received no help from the Assistant

Manager. On March 13, 2022, she again informed the Branch

Manager, PNB that she had not got any cooperation from the

staff at all.

On March 24, 2022, she was informed by the Senior

Branch Manager, Dumdum, PNB that for disbursal of family

pension, certain documents were required along with a

deposit of Rs.2,38,186/- being the excess amount of pension

that has already been deposited in the joint account. On April

10, 2022, the petitioner raised objection to the recovery of the

said amount of Rs.2,38,186/- transmitted by the bank in the

joint account maintained with her husband. She claimed that

nothing in excess has been paid in the joint account

maintained with her husband, since deceased. It was alleged

that since the calculation of pension was done by the bank

itself there is nothing, that is due and payable by her to the

bank.

By a letter dated May 6, 2022, the Senior Branch

Manager again informed the petitioner that in order to start

disbursal of the family pension, the petitioner was required to

refund the excess pension credited in her account between the

period of May 1, 2021 and April 10, 2022.

Thereafter, again the petitioner wrote to the Senior

Branch Manager on May 29, 2022 claiming disbursal of family

pension. However, she was not willing to refund the excess

amount of pension paid from May 2021 till April 2022.

Mr. Sahu, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

petitioner submits that since there was no misrepresentation

on the part of the petitioner, the bank-in-issue was not entitled

to recover any overdrawn amount by her. He relied on

various judgments of the Apex Court. He relied on a

judgments reported in (1994) 2 SCC 521 (Shyam babu Verma

& Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.), (2006) 11 SCC 492

(Purshottam Lal Das & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Ors.), (2006)

8 SCC 647 (Punjab National Bank & Ors. vs. Manjeet Singh

& Anr.), (1996) 4 SCC 416 (Union of India & Ors. vs. M.

Bhaskar & Ors.), 1995 Supp (1) SCC 18 (Sahib Ram vs. State

of Haryana & Ors.) and (2000) 10 SCC 99 (Bihar State

Electricity Board & Anr. Vs. Bijay Bahadur & Anr.) in

support of his contentions that in the event excess payment

was not made on account of fraud or misrepresentation, the

same could not be recovered from the pensionary benefits of

the petitioner.

Ms. Choudhury, learned counsel appears on behalf of

the bank and submits that the petitioner had an excess sum of

Rs.2,38,186/- as on March 24, 2022 due to the disbursal of

entire pensionary benefits that her husband was entitled to.

The petitioner was entitled to family pension since May 2,

2021. However, the petitioner received the entirety of pension

amount that her husband was entitled to prior to his death for

the period of May 2021 till April 2022.

Therefore, there is no infirmity in the decision making

process of the bank in requiring the petitioner to ask for

refund of the said amount. She relied on by an Office Memo

dated May 16, 2018 to contend that any wrong payment made

to a pensioner can be adjusted by the bank against the amount

standing to the credit of the petitioner's account to the extent

possible, including lumpsum arrears as soon as the

wrong/excess payment comes to the notice of the bank.

Considering the rival submissions of the parties and the

materials placed on record, this Court finds no merit in the

petitioner's claim. The petitioner in the various letters

addressed to the bank never mentioned that she was getting

the pensionary benefits due and payable to her husband and

the same was being deposited month by month in their joint

account.

The case of Shyam Babu (supra) is not applicable to the

facts of the case since it relates to payment in a higher scale of

pay which was later directed to be withdrawn by the

authorities. In that circumstances, the Apex Court held that

the petitioners due to no fault of their own received the higher

scale of pay, which the authorities sought to recover.

Therefore, the Apex Court directed that no step should be

taken to recover the excess amount from the petitioners.

In Purshottam Lal Das (supra), the Apex Court in

peculiar circumstances of the case directed no recovery should

be made from the petitioners, from an amount paid in respect

of promotional posts. In that case, the petitioner without any

fault of their own were given promotional benefits of a higher

post without the Promotional Committee according approval,

not being properly constituted.

In Manjeet Singh (supra), the question was whether

the petitioners who were mini deposit collectors employed by

the bank were eligible to their commission or what relief were

they entitled to. Keeping in view the peculiar facts and

circumstances of the case, the recovery was stalled from the

respondents/writ petitioners to avoid undue hardship to them.

In M. Bhaskar (supra), the issue related to the scale of

pay that the Apprentices were entitled to. The Apprentices

laid their claim for a higher scale of pay on the basis of 1987

Memorandum. Even though the Apex Court was of the view

that the Apprentices were not entitled to higher scale of pay

still considering the hardship that the petitioners will be made

to suffer the Apex Court directed its Officers not to recover the

amount already paid.

In Sahib Ram (supra), the issue was whether the

appellant being a Librarian was entitled to a higher scale of

pay as granted by the University Grants Commission, without

having the requisite qualification.

In the circumstances, the Apex Court held that the

appellant without possessing the required educational

qualifications would not be entitled to the relaxation under

UGC. The Principal of the College erred in granting him such

relaxation and paying him at the revised scale. However,

since the revised scale was paid to him not due to any

misrepresentation on his part, the amount already paid may

not be recovered from the appellant.

In Bijay Bahadur (supra), the Apex Court held that

since payments were made without any

representation/misrepresentation on the part of the

petitioners, the appellant/Board could not deduct or recover

the excess amount that was paid by way of increments at an

earlier point of time.

All the cases cited on behalf of the petitioner do not aid

the petitioner's case in any manner as the petitioners in the

aforesaid cases were not aware that they were not entitled to

higher pay.

This Court finds that the petitioner was aware that she

was receiving the pension that her husband was entitled to but

decided not to bring it to the notice of the authorities

concerned. The petitioner continued to receive such pension

without any protest or demur. The petitioner pressed her

claim for family pension without bringing the material facts

on record. Such non-disclosure, to the mind of this Court

amounts to suppression of materials of facts. This Court has

not appreciated the conduct of the petitioner at all. However,

considering the fact that she is a widow and her advanced age,

this Court is not imposing any costs on the petitioner, which it

was otherwise minded to do.

Therefore, there is no infirmity in the decision making

process of the bank. Either the petitioner refunds the amount

claimed by the bank or the excess amount paid by the bank

shall be adjusted month by month from the amount of family

pension payable to her till such time the entirety of the excess

amount is liquidated prior to monthly payment of family

pension to the petitioner.

Accordingly, W.P.A. 6644 of 2023 is dismissed.

All parties shall act on the server copy of this order

duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied

for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all the

formalities.

(Lapita Banerji, J.)