Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ram Wati vs Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam ... on 13 March, 2024
Author: Jasgurpreet Singh Puri
Bench: Jasgurpreet Singh Puri
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:036376
CWP-3649-2020(O&M) -1- 2024:PHHC:036376
239
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-3649-2020 (O&M)
Date of decision: 13.03.2024
Ram Wati
...Petitioner
VERSUS
Dakshin Haryana Bijli Virtan Nigam Ltd. and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI
Present:- Mr. Abhishek Kaushik, Advocate for
Mr. Brij Bhushan, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Ashish Sanghi, Advocate, for respondents No.1 to 3.
Mr. Nitin Kumar, Advocate, for respondents No.4 and 5.
****
JASGURPREET SINGH PURI, J. (Oral)
1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for
quashing the impugned order dated 19.08.2019 (Annexure P-2) whereby
recovery has been effected from the petitioner on account of wrong fixation of
family pension.
2. The brief facts of the present case are that the present petitioner is a
widow of one Attar Singh who was working as a Circle Assistant with the
respondent-Nigam and he retired on 31.10.2008 on attaining the age of
superannuation. Thereafter, unfortunately he died on 30.08.2009. The petitioner
is the widow of the aforesaid Attar Singh and she being widow was entitled for
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:036376
CWP-3649-2020(O&M) -2- 2024:PHHC:036376
family pension which she started receiving. As per Rules of the respondent-
Nigam, the widow was to receive the full pension which was equivalent to the
pay of the husband of the petitioner uptill 31.10.2015 i.e. for seven years and
thereafter, normal family pension was to be restored. The respondent-Nigam
has a tie up with the respondent-Bank who is to pay the pension. However,
after the aforesaid date when the total amount of pension was to be restored to
its family pension and a reduction was to be effected, respondent-Bank did not
do the same and continued to give the same to the petitioner till November,
2019 and it was thereafter that the mistake was detected and the Bank thereafter
recovered an amount of Rs.3,05,000/- from the account of the petitioner. Apart
from the aforesaid recovery which was effected from the petitioner, the Bank
also sought to recover the remaining amount in installments of Rs. 6,147/- per
month. The Bank recovered three installments but thereafter the petitioner filed
the present petition and an interim order was passed by this Court on
11.02.2020 and thereafter, no recovery has been effected.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted
that the petitioner is a widow and it was not the fault of the petitioner nor it was
because of any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the petitioner to get
more amount but it was only because of the fault of either the respondent-
Nigam or the Bank who had after the expiry of 31.10.2015 continued to pay the
same amount of pension which otherwise was required to be reduced by fixing
the family pension of the petitioner in normal course. He submitted that the
petitioner does not dispute re-fixation of the pension after 31.10.2015 because
that was in accordance with the rules but the petitioner only disputes the
recovery which has been effected from the petitioner and which is sought to be
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:036376
CWP-3649-2020(O&M) -3- 2024:PHHC:036376
effected because it was not the fault of the petitioner and has also relied upon a
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and others Vs.
Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others, 2015(4) SCC 344.
4. On the other hand, Mr. Ashish Sanghi, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the respondent-Nigam while referring to the reply submitted that
the respondent-Nigam had rather written a letter to the Bank on 18.02.2010
which is so stated in para No.2 of the preliminary submissions of the reply
and a copy of the same has also been attached as Annexure R-1 that now a
family pension is to be paid after 31.10.2015 i.e. from 01.11.2015 and it was
therefore duly informed to the Bank that the aforesaid correction was to be
carried on but the Bank did not do the same and, therefore, no fault can be
attributable to the respondent-Nigam because fault if any was on the part of the
Bank and not on the part of the Nigam because they with due diligence and in a
proper method had rather informed the Bank vide Annexure R-1 way back in
the year 2010 and it was for the Bank to have fixed the pension to a normal
course.
5. Mr. Nitin Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent-Bank submitted that in fact it was an inadvertent mistake on the part
of the Bank because there was a merger of State Bank of India with State Bank
of Patiala in the year 2017 and the mistake was detected and after detecting the
mistake, the excess amount was recovered from the account of the petitioner
and the remaining amount was sought to be recovered by way of installments of
Rs. 6,147/-per month. He submitted that the judgment of Rafiq Masih's case
(Supra) will not apply in the present case in view of the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in High Court of Punjab & Haryana and others Vs.
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:036376
CWP-3649-2020(O&M) -4- 2024:PHHC:036376
Jagdev Singh, 2016(14) SCC 267 because the petitioner had also given an
undertaking vide Annexure R-4/1 that in case any excess payment is to be
made, then she will be liable to refund the same and, therefore, the judgment
of Jagdev Singh's case (Supra) will apply and Rafiq Masih's case (Supra)
will not apply.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
7. It is a case where the petitioner is a widow and after the death of
her husband, she started receiving the pension which was equivalent to the pay
which was paid to her in accordance with the Rules of the respondent-Nigam
for a period of seven years and the aforesaid was to stop on 31.10.2015 and
thereafter, the normal pension was to be fixed w.e.f. 01.11.2015. However, it is
the admitted case of the parties that the Bank who was to disburse the pension
did not do the same despite the fact that the Nigam vide letter dated 18.02.2010
(Annexure R-1) had provided the information in this regard to the Bank and in
this way as per the Nigam, there was no fault of the Nigam. However, the stand
of the Bank was that it was an inadvertent mistake on the part of the Bank to
have not rectified the total amount which was to be paid to the petitoiner.
8. It was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the
petitioner is a widow and it was not the fault of the petitioner at all and in this
way, the amount of Rs. 3,05,000/- which has been recovered from the account
of the petitioner is not in accordance with law in view of the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih's case (Supra).
9. This Court is of the considered view that so far as the applicability
of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih's case (Supra)
is concerned, the same will not apply to the present case since it is a case where
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:036376
CWP-3649-2020(O&M) -5- 2024:PHHC:036376
the recovered amount is not an amount which has been given prior to retirement
but it is a case of post retirement and even otherwise also, in view of the
undertaking given by the petitioner, the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Rafiq Masih's case (Supra) will not apply but another judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jagdev Singh's case (Supra) will apply in the facts
and circumstances of the present case and, therefore, it cannot be said that the
Nigam or the Bank cannot recover the amount from the petitioner.
10. However, the facts and circumstances of the present case suggest
that because of negligence of the Bank, the aforesaid amount has been
recovered to the extent of Rs. 3,05,000/- in lump sum from a poor widow and
this action is totally arbitrary on the part of the Bank and a perusal of the reply
filed by respondent-Bank also shows that there was some SMS alert also with
regard to an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- of FDR which was also not in accordance
with law. Apart from the above, the total family pension of the petitioner as of
now as per the learned counsel for the petitioner is Rs. 15,550/- per month and
the Bank has fixed an installment of Rs.6,147/- per month. Learned counsel for
the petitioner has clearly argued that the petitioner being a poor widow cannot
even make her both ends meet in case the aforesaid amount is deducted as an
installment.
11. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the aforesaid amount of
Rs. 6,147/- which is in the form of monthly installment is excessive and it is,
therefore, directed that the recovery from the family pension of the petitioner
will only be restricted to an amount of Rs. 2,500/- per month and the
respondent-Bank is therefore directed to refix the aforesaid installment in this
regard. So far as the lump sum recovery of Rs. 3,05,000/- from the account of
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:036376
CWP-3649-2020(O&M) -6- 2024:PHHC:036376
the petitioner is concerned, recovery could have been effected in small
installments and not lump sum. Clearly the Bank has committed a negligence
which has affected the right to livelihood of the petitioner who is a widow and
her right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India has been infracted.
Therefore, it will be just and proper to impose costs upon the respondent-Bank
in this regard. Consequently, costs of Rs. 50,000/- (fifty thousand) is imposed
upon the respondent-Bank. The respondent-Bank is directed to pay the
aforesaid costs to the petitioner who is a widow within a period of three months
from today.
12. The present petition stands disposed of.
13. List for compliance purposes only on 03.07.2024.
(JASGURPREET SINGH PURI)
13.03.2024 JUDGE
rakesh
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
6 of 6
