{"id":308445,"date":"2023-12-05T14:00:51","date_gmt":"2023-12-05T08:30:51","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=308445"},"modified":"2023-12-05T14:05:11","modified_gmt":"2023-12-05T08:35:11","slug":"madhya-pradesh-high-court-upholds-banks-right-to-recover-excess-amount-of-pension-legal-news-scc-blog","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/12\/05\/madhya-pradesh-high-court-upholds-banks-right-to-recover-excess-amount-of-pension-legal-news-scc-blog\/","title":{"rendered":"Madhya Pradesh High Court upholds bank\u2019s right to recover excess payment in pension recovery dispute"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Madhya Pradesh High Court:<\/span> In a writ petition filed under Article 226<\/a> of the Constitution of India<\/a> against an order issued by the State Bank of India directing the petitioner to either refund entire amount of excess payment of in her pension in one instalment or face recovery in monthly instalments, a single-judge bench comprising of G.S. Ahluwalia, J., upheld the bank’s right to recover the excess pension amount and imposing interest on the outstanding sum from the date of the interim order.<\/p>\n

Brief Facts<\/p>\n

In the instant matter, a retired teacher, also a widow, filed a writ petition under Article 226<\/a> of the Constitution of India<\/a> challenging an order dated 09-03-2020 issued by the respondent 1, State Bank of India. The order informed the petitioner of an excess payment of Rs. 3,11,894\/- made to her pension. The bank directed the petitioner to either refund the entire amount in one instalment or face recovery through easy monthly instalments of Rs. 12,394\/-.<\/p>\n

Parties’ Contentions<\/p>\n

The petitioner contended that, as per the Supreme Court in State of Punjab<\/span> v. Rafiq Masih<\/span>, (2015) 4 SCC 334<\/a>, the recovery of excess payment to a retired employee is impermissible, and the circumstances leading to the excess payment were not clarified in the impugned order.<\/p>\n

The respondents contended that the excess payment resulted from the petitioner’s failure to disclose the commuted portion of her pension. They argued that the commuted instalment of Rs. 4946\/- per month for 15 years, as claimed by the petitioner in 2014, was not deducted, leading to excess payment. The Reserve Bank of India circular dated 17.03.2016 was cited, which requires adjusting excess payments against the pensioner’s account. The respondents also asserted that the petitioner had given an undertaking to refund any excess payment. Respondent 3 argued that the petitioner, being a former employee of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangthan, should approach the Central Administrative Tribunal for relief against them.<\/p>\n

Legal Principles<\/p>\n