Chattisgarh High Court
State Bank Of India vs Smt. Vimla Singh on 31 July, 2025
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1/6
2025:CGHC:37430-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WA No. 533 of 2025
1 - State Bank Of India Zonal Manager, Centralized Pension Processing Cell,
Kutchery Branch Premises Balashram Complex Raipur, Distt.- Raipur,
Chhattisgarh.
2 - Branch Manager State Bank Of India, Bilaigarh Branch (Branch Code-
05770), Distt.- Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (Chhattisgarh).
... Appellant(s)
versus
1 - Smt. Vimla Singh W/o Late Shri Buddhiman Singh Aged About 77 Years
R/o Bansurkuli Bilaigarh, Thana And Tahsil- Bilaigarh, Distt.- Sarangarh-
Bilaigarh (Chhattisgarh)
2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Agriculture Department,
Capital Complex, Atal Nagar Naya Raipur, Distt.- Raipur (Chhattisgarh).
3 - Director Directorate Of Accounts And Pension, Raipur, Distt.- Raipur
(Chhattisgarh).
---- Respondents
(Cause title taken from Case Information System)
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, Sr. Advocate along
with Mr. Harshal Chouhan, Advocate
For Respondent(s) No.1 : Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate
For Respondent(s) No. 2 : Mr. Shashansk Thakur, Deputy A.G.
and 3/State
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
VEDPRAKASH
DEWANGAN Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
Digitally signed by
VEDPRAKASH
DEWANGAN
Date: 2025.08.01
19:00:31 +0530
2/6
Order on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, C.J.
31/07/2025
1. Heard on I.A. No. 2 of 2025, which is an application for condonation of
delay in filing the appeal. On due consideration, I.A. No. 2 of 2025 is
allowed and delay of 40 days in filing the present writ appeal is
condoned.
2. The present writ appeal has been filed by the writ appellants against
the impugned order dated 01.04.2025, passed by learned Single
Judge, in WPS No. 88 of 2025, whereby the writ petition filed by the
petitioner/respondent No.1 is allowed and the impugned order dated
02.09.2024 is quashed.
3. The brief facts of the case are that, the husband of the petitioner was
retired from the post of Senior Agriculture Development Officer on
31.08.2002. After retirement, he died on 12.01.2007. The petitioner
being the wife of the deceased employee receiving family pension
through her bank account running at State Bank of India, Bilaigarh
branch. On 30.11.2023, she was orally informed by the bank authorities
that her bank account is kept on hold, but the reason has not been
assigned, but till 16.02.2024, she was not permitted to operate her
bank account. When she again had gone to withdraw the amount from
her bank account, it was informed that due to excess pension paid, Rs.
8 lakhs are hold on her bank account. On 19.02.2024, she made an
application for removing of hold from her bank account. Despite legal
notice, when the hold from her bank account was not removed, she
approached before this Court by filing WPC No. 3172 of 2024, which
was disposed of vide order dated 27.06.2024 directing the petitioner to
submit the document as required by the bank authorities and then the
bank authorities shall consider and pass appropriate orders in
accordance with law within the stipulated time frame.
On 02.09.2024, the recovery order has been issued by the bank,
in which it has been stated that there are excess payment of pension of
Rs. 14,55,476/-, which is liable to be recovered from her pension and it
was ordered that, till the recovery of entire amount of excess payment,
Rs. 7532/- (1/3rd of the pension) is to be recovered per month from the
pension of the petitioner, which starts from 30.09.2024. The petitioner
has filed the writ petition that she is 76 years old aged lady and there is
no fault on her part, as she has never misrepresented to the bank for
fixation of the pension. The bank has released the family pension
amount since 2009 to 2024. By the impugned order of recovery, she
would be prejudiced as she is fully dependent upon the family pension.
4. After hearing the parties, on 01.04.2025, the learned Single Judge
allowed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner and quashed the
order dated 02.09.2024 and directed the writ appellants/bank, not to
recover any amount from the family pension of the petitioner, and full
pension be paid to her as per her entitlement, which is under challenge
in the present writ appeal.
5. Learned counsel for the writ appellants would vehemently submit that,
the excess amount paid to the petitioner, is an amount of public
exchequer and is required to be recovered from her. There is an
undertaking by the petitioner with respect to right of recovery in favour
of the bank towards excess payment. He would also submit that in the
earlier round of litigation, in WPC No. 3172 of 2024, there was a
direction to submit the documents as required by the bank, mentioned
in the reply of the legal notice dated 15.04.2024, but the petitioner has
not complied with the said order, and therefore, as per the records
available with the bank, they issued the recovery order dated
02.09.2024. Although the petitioner claimed that, she is only the bread
winner of her family and her financial condition is very poor, yet the
excess payment should be recovered from her in installments to the
extent of 1/3rd of her family pension, yet the learned Single Judge has
allowed the writ petition and quashed the order dated 02.09.2024,
therefore, the impugned order dated 01.04.2025 is liable to be set-
aside and the writ petition is also liable to be dismissed.
*******He would further submit that the learned Single Judge should at least
have granted an opportunity to file a departmental appeal as provided
under the Rules of 1969. Therefore, the impugned order suffers from
perversity and illegality and the same is liable to be set aside.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the private
respondent No.1 would support the impugned order and submitted that
after considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and
law applicable to it, the learned Single Judge has passed the reasoned
order, which is justified and the writ appeal is liable to be dismissed.
7. Learned appearing for the respondents No. 2 and 3/State would submit
that the recovery order has been issued by the bank, and therefore, he
is contesting the case. The State would be a formal party in the present
writ petition.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
materials annexed with the writ appeal as well as the writ petition.
9. Undisputedly, the petitioner is receiving family pension on account of
death of her husband in the year 2007, who was a retired employee
from government service. The petitioner who is presently aged about
77 years, is dependent upon the family pension. The bank could not
demonstrate any misrepresentation or playing fraud by the petitioner
for fixation of her family pension and it is the bank authorities have paid
after taking a conscious decision with respect to the family pension of
the petitioner and her entitlement. The recovery order has been made
after alleged excess payment made for 15 years. The learned Single
Judge has also considered the difficulties and livelihood of the
petitioner as she is the sole bread winner of her family by way of the
family pension and is not a condition to pay back the excess amount
which she has already drawn. While considering the case of the
petitioner, the learned Single Judge adverted all the legal and equitable
grounds applicable to the present case and quashed the impugned
recovery order dated 02.09.2024. The learned Single Judge has also
distinguished the judgment of "Chandiprasad Uniyal and others v.
State of Uttrakhand and others" 2012 (8) SCC 417 on the facts of
that case.
10. Upon perusing the impugned order, we noticed that the same has been
rendered by the learned Single Judge with cogent and justifiable
reasons. In an intra-court appeal, no interference is usually warranted
unless palpable infirmities are noticed. Learned Single Judge while
dismissing the writ petition by the impugned order has adverted to all
the facts of the case.
11. We do not find any good ground to interfere with the finding recorded
by learned Single Judge and the appeal being devoid of merits, liable
to be and hereby dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
ved
