The Assistant General Manager vs Lalita Jaiswal
2025 Latest Caselaw 3503 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

The Assistant General Manager vs Lalita Jaiswal on 26 March, 2025

Author: Deepak Roshan

Bench: Deepak Roshan

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                L.P.A. No. 588 of 2024
1. The Assistant General Manager, Centralized Pension Processing
   Centre (CPPC, State Bank of India, 4th Floor, Administrative Office,
   Judges' Court Road, Patna, P.O.- GPO, P.S.- Kotwali, District - Patna,
   Bihar.
2. The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Lapung Branch, P.O. & P.S.
   Lapung, District Ranchi.
                                                          ...  Appellants
                          Versus
1. Lalita Jaiswal, aged about 63 years, wife of Late Om Prakash jaiswa,
   Resident of Lapung, P.O. & P.S. Lapung, District Ranchi.
2. The State of Jharkhand, through its Secretary, Planning Cum Finance,
   Govt. of Jharkhand, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, Dist. Ranchi.
3. Accountant General (A&E), Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, P.O.
   & P.S.- Doranda, Dist. Ranchi, Jharkhand.
                                                      ...     Respondents
                          ---------
CORAM:              HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
                          ---------
For the Appellants:       Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate
For Resp. No.1:           Mr. Kumar Rahul Kamlesh, Advocate
For Resp. No.2:           Mr. Jayant Franklin Toppo, G.A.-V
For Resp. No.3:           Mr. Rohit Sinha, Advocate
                          ---------
Reserved on: 05.03.2025                    Pronounced on: 26/03/2025
Per M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.

1. This Letters Patent Appeal is preferred by the appellants challenging the judgment dt. 03.07.2024 of the learned Single Judge in

W.P. (S) No. 1926 of 2021.

Background facts

2. The 1st respondent had approached this Court by filing said writ petition aggrieved by a deduction of an amount of Rs.7,84,077/- which was being illegally and arbitrarily done from the family pension account

of the 1st respondent.

3. The husband of the 1st respondent was a High School Teacher, who after completion of 28 years of service, died in harness on 25.11.2005 and

thereafter, the 1st respondent was sanctioned family pension through a Pension Payment Order.

4. According to the 1st respondent, in view of the liberalization of the provisions of Family Pension Scheme, 1964 in respect to families of the State Government employees who died while in service, there was a

concept of enhanced family pension introduced by the State Government. The respondent contended that it was provisioned that for a period of seven years from the date of death or up to the date on which the deceased

government servant could have attained the age of 65 years had he survived, whichever period is less, pension payable will be at the rate of

50% of the basic pay last drawn. In terms thereof, the family pension granted to the respondent with effect from 25.11.2005 was at the enhanced rate and this was to be continued till 25.11.2012.

5. Respondent also contended that subsequently, in terms of recommendation made by the 6th Central Pay Commission, the

Government of India issued an Office Memorandum on 02.09.2008 and increased the period of seven years to ten years without any upper age limit. This was also clarified in an Office Memorandum dt. 03.10.2008

that the period of ten years for payment of enhanced family pension would also apply in the case of the government servants who died before

01.01.2006 and in respect of whom family was receiving enhanced family pension as on 01.01.2006.

6. The State Government through a resolution dt. 28.02.2009

implemented the recommendation of the 6th Central Pay Commission.

7. In terms of Pension Payment Order issued in her favour, the 1st respondent was getting the pension amount credited in her bank account

standing in her name in the State Bank of India, Lapung Branch, till November 2018.

8. However, on 17.12.2018 she received a letter from the appellant no.2 intimating that she had been paid an excess amount of Rs.7,84,077/-

in lieu of the family pension and stating further that the money is Government money and the Bank is required to return the same to the Government. She was directed to deposit the amount in her bank account

within fifteen days and it was indicated that if she did not comply, her pension account would be put on hold. It was also indicated therein that if the money is not deposited, the Bank would be free to recover the same

with interest.

9. The respondent then gave representations to the appellants on

07.01.2019 and 21.01.2019 requesting them to provide calculations taking into account the circulars issued by the Central as well as the State Government, in terms of which she was entitled for payment of enhanced

pension for a period of ten years from the date of grant of initial pension, instead of seven years.

10. Thereafter, another letter was received by the respondent from the appellant No.2 on 14.01.2019 informing her that recovery had already started as she had given an undertaking in her letters that she would refund

the actual excess amount if any paid by the Bank.

11. The respondent again protested through a letter dt. 29.01.2019

addressed to the appellant No.2 asking him to provide correct calculation. She also applied under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and on 04.02.2019, she was furnished details of the amount deducted from her

account till January 2019. It was informed that Rs.4,13,719/- was already deducted and the balance is Rs.3,70,358/-.

12. However, later, the respondent got legal notice from appellant No.2 dt. 11.02.2019 stating that the balance amount in her name was

Rs.6,20,358/-.

13. Ultimately, the respondent was informed that on 24.05.2019 that

since her husband had died on 25.11.2005, i.e., before 01.01.2006, she was eligible for enhanced pension for a period of seven years only and not ten years.

14. The respondent then filed the Writ Petition in this Court and disputed the same.

15. She relied on the Memo dt. 03.10.2008 issued by the Government

of India making it clear that the period of ten years for payment of enhanced family pension will come from the date of death of the

government servant and the same would also apply in the case of government servants who died before 01.01.2006 and in respect of whom the family is receiving enhanced family pension as on 01.01.2006.

16. The appellants refuted the said contentions before the learned Single Judge.

Findings of the learned Single Judge

17. The learned Single Judge held that the period of seven years was enhanced to ten years in the 6th Central Pay Revision Commission which

was not disputed by the appellants and so for the first ten years, it cannot be said that the respondent had received family pension illegally at an

enhanced rate.

18. He also held that the Bank had exceeded its jurisdiction in deducting the amount and the amount recovered by the Bank prior to the

period 2015 be refunded along with statutory interest to the respondent within four weeks along with cost of Rs.25,000/-.

19. The learned Single Judge also held that Bank has to pay pensionary

benefits/family pension as per direction of the State Government and it has

no authority to decide whether the respondent had received the amount illegally or arbitrarily or against the provisions of law. If the same was

done, it was not the lookout of the Bank and if at all it has to be recovered, it has to be referred to the State on the ground that the respondent was

getting pension at a higher rate than her entitlement and then the State would make a recommendation to the Accountant General for issuance of a fresh/revised PPO. He held that, therefore, the Bank exceeded its

jurisdiction in deducting the amount.

Pleadings in the present appeal

20. Challenging the same, this appeal is filed.

21. Heard the counsel for the appellants.

22. Counsel for the appellants contended that the reasoning of the

learned Single Judge is incorrect and the order of the learned Single Judge is not sustainable.

23. The counsel for the appellants contended that the Accountant

General, Jharkhand informed through Treasury Officer that the respondent was entitled for enhanced rate of pension till October 2012, but due to

mistake on the part of the appellants-Bank, the respondent had been paid enhanced rate of pension even after October 2012 upto 2018, and, therefore, the same needed to be recovered.

24. It is also contended that the respondent had given an undertaking (Annexure D) with the counter affidavit filed by the appellants where she

had undertaken that if any excess amount was paid to her which she is not entitled, it can be recovered from the pension account.

25. Reliance is also placed on a Circular of the Reserve Bank of India

dt. 17.03.2016 and also a judgment dt. 11.07.2020 in Indian Bank (Erstwhile Allahabad Bank) Vs. Kiran Srivastava and Ors1 passed by this Court.

26. Counsel for the respondent refuted the said contentions and supported the judgment of the learned single Judge.

Findings and conclusion of this Court

27. It is not in dispute that the husband of the respondent was a Class-

III employee.

28. The Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and Ors Vs. Rafiq Masih2, had categorically held in para 18 that if payments have

been mistakenly made by the employer in excess of entitlement of an employee, there would undoubtedly be hardship if recovery is made from Class-III service employees and also Class-IV service employees. It also

held that it is not permissible to make recovery from employees whom excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years, before

the order of recovery is issued.

29. The counsel for the appellants contends that the said judgment will not apply because in the judgment of the Division Bench in Indian Bank

(Erstwhile Allahabad Bank) (1 supra ), recovery of Rs.2,19,193/- was being made by the appellant-Bank from the pension being paid to the

respondent by the State Government.

30. The Division Bench in the said case considered the judgment in Rafiq Masih (supra 2) and also the judgment of the Supreme Court in

High Court of Punjab and Haryana and Ors Vs. Jagdev Singh3. The Division Bench held that in the case of Jagdev Singh (supra 3), the

Supreme Court has declined to apply the judgment in Rafiq Masih (supra

2) and that it would, therefore, apply the judgment in Jagdev Singh (supra

3).

31. In our opinion, it appears that that the attention of the Division Bench in Indian Bank (Erstwhile Allahabad Bank) (1 supra) was not drawn to the fact that in Jagdev Singh (supra 3), the person involved was

(2015) 4 SCC 334

(2016) 14 SCC 267

a Civil Judge, Junior Division, and the issue related to the pay given to him after he was promoted as an Additional Civil Judge. He was, thus, not

a Class-III or Class-IV employee. Therefore, the said decision in Jagdev Singh (supra 3) would not apply to a situation where a Class-III/Class-IV

employee is involved like the instant case which deals with the widow of a Class-III employee.

32. The Division Bench in Indian Bank (Erstwhile Allahabad Bank)

(1 supra) also relied on another judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Laxmi Bai Solani (Smt.) Vs. Centralised Pension Processing Centre and Ors4 and held that the learned Single Judge whose judgment

was impugned before the said Bench did not consider the applicability of the Madhya Pradesh High Court's judgment. The Division Bench in in

Indian Bank (Erstwhile Allahabad Bank) (1 supra) cannot blame the learned Single Judge in that case for not following the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court which, at best, had a persuasive value and

was certainly not binding on the learned Single Judge.

33. Obviously the respondent had agreed to the recovery under

coercion/threat of entire family pension being withheld and also because she was a hapless widow dependent on the family pension. Therefore such an undertaking obtained from her under economic duress cannot be said to

have been given by way of free will and consent and so cannot be enforced by the appellants.

34. In view of the fact that the respondent's husband was a Class-III employee, and since it is not the case of the appellants that either he or she had, in any way, made any misrepresentation or fraud to get any excess

payment, and since it would undoubtedly be harsh to ask the respondent to refund the excess payment made more than five years after the same was paid to her, we find no merit in the stand taken by the appellants that they

2012 (4) MPLJ 132

are entitled to make recovery of the excess payment of the family pension made to the respondent.

35. Therefore, the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/- to be paid to the respondent within 4 weeks by the appellants.

36. All pending applications shall stand disposed off.

(M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.)

(Deepak Roshan, J.) N.F.R. Manoj/-