Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
State Bank Of India vs Tulsi Devi (2025:Rj-Jd:916-Db) on 7 January, 2025
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:916-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18546/2018
1. State Bank of India, UIT Branch, Opposite Railway
Hospital, Jodhpur through its Branch Manager.
2. Manager, New and Revised Section, Centralized Pension
Processing Centre, Chandni Chowk, New Delhi.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Tulsi Devi W/o Late Shri Hukmichand Jangid, resident of
Plot No. 95-C, Ghanchi Colony, Bhagat Ki Kothi, Jodhpur.
2. Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Information
and Broadcasting, Room No. 655, A Wing, Shastri
Bhawan, New Delhi.
3. Director General, All India Radio, Akashwani Bhawan,
Parliament Street, New Delhi.
4. Pay And Accounts (AIR), Akashwani Bhawan, Parliament
Street, New Delhi.
5. Principal Account Office, 701, A-Wing, Shastri Bhawan,
New Delhi.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mukul Singhvi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Himanshu Shrimali
Mr. Harish Jangid
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN
Order
07/01/2025
1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners
with the following prayer:
"i. the writ petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be
allowed with costs;
ii. by an appropriate writ, order or direction the
impugned judgment dated 04.05.2018 (Anx.P/9)
passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal,
[2025:RJ-JD:916-DB] (2 of 4) [CW-18546/2018]
Jodhpur Bench may kindly be quashed and set aside
with all consequential benefits and reliefs;
iii. Any other appropriate relief (s) which this Hon'ble
High Court deems just and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in
favour of the petitioner;"
2. The petitioner No.1 is a nationalized bank and a disbursing
authority of pension to the erstwhile employees of the
Government. The respondent No.1 whose husband, while working
in All India Radio on the post of SEA, died while in service on
21.05.2002 and her pension was accordingly sanctioned. The bank
chosen for giving pension to respondent No.1 was the petitioner -
bank and while the operation of the bank was being carried on, an
undertaking (Annexure-3) was given by respondent No.1 that in
case any excess payment is withdrawn by her to which she is not
entitled, the bank will be entitled to recover the same. The
respondent No.1 received the excess payment of pension from
May, 2012 to May, 2015, whereas the enhanced payment was to
be paid only upto 21.05.2012 and the error happened on the
oversight and inadvertence on the part of the bank. The bank
authorities on coming to know the mistake, sought recovery of the
excess amount of Rs.2,85,940/- in installments of Rs.4,645/- from
the monthly pension admissible to the respondent No.1.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner-bank submits that the
bank is only an agent and the paying authority was the All India
Radio. In the present case, the payment has not been made by
the All India Radio but only at the time of disbursal, the bank
committed a mistake and since the bank had an undertaking on
the part of respondent No.1 that in case any erroneous payment is
[2025:RJ-JD:916-DB] (3 of 4) [CW-18546/2018]
made it shall be liable to be recovered thus, the recovery is
justified in law.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner-bank further submits that
the impugned order has been passed on the basis of judgment
passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of
Punjab & Ors. Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) reported on
(2014) 8 SCC 883 whereby any payment made by the
government to its employees in certain circumstances, if the
employee himself did not conceal, mislead or participate in any
wrong doing, was not entitled to be recovered. He further submits
that this was applicable only to the employer and not upon the
agent who was the bank.
5. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that the law
laid down in the case of Rafiq Masih (Supra) is applicable in the
present case. He has also referred to the judgment dated
16.12.2021 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh in
the case of Bank Manager, Allahabad Bank Vs. Smt. Sangita
Mishra & Anr. (Writ Appeal No.46/2019).
6. This Court after hearing the submissions, finds that the
respondent No.1 was paid excess amount by the bank even when
she was entitled for a particular amount as pension in lieu of her
husband's death who was an employee of All India Radio. The
pension amount was Rs.11,218/- which was to be paid till
21.05.2012 whereas it continued to be paid till the month of April,
2015. In the opinion of this Court, the mistake of a bank who is
not an employer cannot be said to be covered by the law laid
down in the case of Rafiq Masih (Supra). Infact, the bank is
merely an agent and the agent as a disbursing authority, if
[2025:RJ-JD:916-DB] (4 of 4) [CW-18546/2018]
commits any mistake while disbursing any payment, is liable to be
recovered. The recovery thus does not fall within the purview of
law laid down in the case of Rafiq Masih (Supra) and cannot be
protected. The law laid down in the case of Rafiq Masih (Supra)
shall operate only when excess payment and its receipt is a
transfer between employer and employee and not when an
intermediary or a payment facilitator disburses the same, on its
own, by mistake.
7. Accordingly, the instant Civil Writ Petition is allowed. The
impugned order dated 04.05.2018 passed by the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench is quashed and set aside.
(MUNNURI LAXMAN),J (DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
61-BhumikaP/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
