Kerala High Court
Bhageerathi Amma B vs The Union Territory Of Andaman And ... on 12 February, 2025
Author: Amit Rawal
Bench: Amit Rawal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. V. JAYAKUMAR
WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 23RD MAGHA, 1946
OP (CAT) NO. 146 OF 2023
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 07.03.2023 IN OA NO.384 OF 2018 OF
THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH
PETITIONER/APPLICANT IN THE O.A.:
BHAGEERATHI AMMA B.,
AGED 67 YEARS
W/O. LATE G. RAVEENDRA KURUP, RESIDING AT RAVI VILAS,
PULIYURKONAM P.O., MADAVOOR, PALLICKAL, KILIMAANOOR,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695604
BY ADVS.
C.R.SIVAKUMAR
S.SOORYA GAYATHRY
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDNETS IN O.A.:
1 THE UNION TERRITORY OF ANDAMAN AND NICOBAR ISLANDS,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, PORT BLAIR, ANDAMANS,
REP BY CHIEF SECRETARY, PIN - 744101
2 THE PAY AND ACCOUNTS OFFICER - II,
ANDAMAN AND NICOBAR ISLANDS ADMINISTRATION,
SOUTH ANDAMAN, PORT BLAIR, PIN - 744101
3 THE MANAGER,
STATE BANK OF INDIA, PALLICKAL BRANCH, MADAVOOR,
PALLICKAL P.O., THIRUVANATHAPURAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 695604
THIS OP (CAT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12.02.2025, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
OP (CAT) NO. 146 OF 2023 -2-
2025:KER:18046
JUDGMENT
K. V. JAYAKUMAR, J.
Feeling aggrieved by the order of the Central
Administrative Tribunal dated 07.03.2023 in O.A.No.384
of 2018, the applicant preferred this O.P.(CAT).
2. Facts necessary for disposal of the O.P.
(CAT), in brief, are stated hereunder:
The petitioner/applicant, Smt.Bhageerathi Amma, is a
family pensioner, being the widow of Sri.G.Raveendra
Kurup, who had retired from service on 28.02.2005 from
the post of Tahsildar in the Andaman and Nicobar
Islands. Later he died on 16.01.2008.
3. The applicant was getting a monthly
pension of Rs.7,566/- from February, 2008 onwards
through the third respondent Bank.
4. From January, 2014 onwards she was
receiving pension at Rs.15,159/-. Thereafter, from June
2014 she was sanctioned pension of Rs.15,956/- and in
October, 2014 it was enhanced to Rs.18,192/-. However,
from 30.09.2015 the monthly pension was reduced to
Rs.8,192/-, again it was reduced to Rs.7,614/- on
2025:KER:18046
30.01.2015. Thereafter, she got Annexure A5
communication dated 25.10.2017 informing that the
deduction from pension has been enhanced to Rs.4,289/-
from the existing deduction of Rs.2,929/-, from October,
2017. It was also informed that recovery was being made
in terms of RBI Circular dated 17.03.2016 (Annexure-A6).
The petitioner/applicant challenged Annexure-A5 and
Annexure-A6 orders. The petitioner/applicant further
contended that, while disbursing the pension in 2008, the
third respondent bank had obtained her signatures on
certain papers including blank papers. Therefore, the
recovery by the Bank is iniquitous and arbitrary. Her
pension was reduced without giving her an opportunity of
being heard.
5. The contention of the third respondent
Bank is that the pension of the applicant was enhanced
erroneously and was paid an excess amount of
Rs.2,25,540/-. The said excess amount was sought to be
recovered from the applicant in seventy-seven(77)
monthly installments which commenced from April, 2015
at the rate of Rs.2,929/- per month until September,
2025:KER:18046
2017. From October, 2017 onwards the recovery amount
was enhanced to Rs.4,289/- per month. The Bank has
already recovered an amount of Rs.1,28,573/- and a sum
of Rs.96,967/- is outstanding. The contention of the Bank
before the tribunal and before us is that the
petitioner/applicant had given Annexure R3(a)
undertaking and therefore cannot resist the recovery of
excess amount received by her. Annexures R3(b) and
R3(c) office memorandum empowering the Bank to effect
the recovery.
6. The Central Administrative Tribunal,
noticing the rival contention of the parties, rejected the
claim of the petitioner. The relevant paragraph extracted
hereunder:
".....17. As rightly pointed out by the learned
Standing Counsel, the applicant is not entitled to
get the benefit of any of the situations provided
in paragraph 12 of Rafiq Masih. The applicant is
claiming that she is entitled to get the benefit of
clause(iii) that is 'recovery from employees,
when the excess payment has been made for a
period in excess of five years, before the order of
recovery is issued.'
18. The learned counsel for the applicant
wanted this Tribunal to believe that the amount
was started recovering from 2009 onwards.
Then he said that recovery had started from
2012, but there is absolutely no evidence for the
2025:KER:18046
same. There is no positive avement in the O.A.
that recovery was started from 2009 or 2012. On
the other hand it is very clear from Annexures-
A3 and A4 copy of bank account that from
January 2008 onwards the bank was crediting
the pension amount to her account. Such
amount has steadily progressed till they started
recovering from April 2015 onwards. Annexure-
A4 pass book clearly indicates and supports the
version of the 3rd respondent that recoveries
were commenced from April 2015 only. As the
applicant was paid amounts in excess for three
years, by mistake, the bank is entitled to recover
the excess amount in easy instalments.
19. As indicated earlier, it is public money,
which cannot be disbursed without any basis.
When the payment of excess amount was
noticed, the bank started recovering the same.
Clause(iii) of paragraph 12 of Rafiq Masih is not
applicable in the facts of the case.
20. Even though the bank has highlighted
Annexure-R3(a) undertaking and R3(d) order of
this Tribunal, I do not want to go into such
aspects of the matter. I have no doubt that
Annexure-R3(a) cannot stand judicial scrutiny.
When the learned counsel highlighted the
decision in Jagdev Singh, quoted supra, this
Tribunal cannot ignore the decision of the
Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in State
of Kerala and Others v. Vinod Kumar C.R.
[2020 KHC 468]. But for the disposal of this
case, it is not necessary to go into such an angle.
21. In other words, the applicant was
entitled to get enhanced pension during the first
seven years of retirement of the pensioner. Even
after the expiry of that period, the bank
continued to pay her enhanced rate of pension.
On realising the mistake, they stopped payment
at enhanced rate and started recovering the
excess. At that stage, the applicant had no
grievance and she approached this Tribunal only
2025:KER:18046
after service of Annexure-A5, after acquiescing
the recoveries effected from 2015 to 2017. The
applicant has not come before this Tribunal
appraising true facts. She knew that recoveries
were effected from April 2015 onwards. She is
not entitled to get the dictum in Rafiq Masih.
The bank is entitled to recover the excess
payment made to her."
Reasoning of the Central Administrative Tribunal
is that the petitioner/applicant is not entitled to the
benefit of Clause (iii) of paragraph 12 of the Rafiq
Masih's (supra) case. Moreover, since the petitioner
had given Annexure-R3(a) undertaking to the Bank
agreeing to recover the excess amount of pension, if any
received, the petitioner cannot resist the recovery. Upon
hearing the submissions of the counsel for the parties, we
do not find any good ground for interfere with the
findings of the Central Administrative Tribunal under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Thus, the O.P.
(CAT) is dismissed.
Sd/-
AMIT RAWAL
JUDGE
Sd/-
K. V. JAYAKUMAR
JUDGE
vv
2025:KER:18046
APPENDIX OF OP (CAT) 146/2023
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
07.03.2023 IN O.A. NO. 384/2018 OF THE
HON'BLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE
TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
APPLICATION NO. 384/2018 FILED BY THE
PETITIONER ALONG WITH ANNEXURES
EXHIBIT P2A A TRUE COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENT
OF ANNEXURE A7 IS PRODUCED BY THE
PETITIONER THROUGH A MISCELLANEOUS
APPLICATION NO 880/18 IN THE ABOVE OP
(CAT)
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT
DATED 01.02.2019 FILED BY THE
RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT
FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER DATED
19.11.2022
EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT OF
THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 27/10/2022
