Allowed¶36

Smt. Uma Dwivedi v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC6 Jul 2025WPS/1022/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh High Court, Bilaspur — WPS No. 1022 of 2016 (decided 07.07.2025, Justice Sachin Singh Rajput) — Recovery of excess pension from widow without notice — No misrepresentation or fraud — Rule 47, MP/CG Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 — Thomas Daniel v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 438 — Annexure P-1 recovery chart quashed — Refund of deducted amount directed — Petition allowed.

What did the court decide?

Quashment of the calculation chart of pension/recovery chart (Annexure P-1) and a direction to the respondents to refund the amount already deducted from the petitioner's pension. ¶36

Smt. Uma Dwivedi Vs State Of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Quashment of the calculation chart of pension/recovery chart (Annexure P-1) and a direction to the respondents to refund the amount already deducted from the petitioner's pension.

¶36

Issue for consideration

Whether recovery of excess pension payment can be made from the petitioner in the absence of any misrepresentation or fraud on her part, notwithstanding reliance by the respondents on Rule 47 of the MP/CG Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976. +1 more

¶25

Court's answer

The respondents have not filed any document showing any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the petitioner as a result of which she received the excess amount of pension; hence recovery cannot be allowed.

¶34

Ratio / Principle

Even if the excess pension was paid on account of a wrong interpretation of the rules, the petitioner cannot be put to hardship by way of recovery.

¶34

Key takeaways

The calculation chart of pension (Annexure P-1) is quashed and the respondents are directed to refund the amount already deducted from the petitioner's pension.ratio¶35

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Recovery of excess pension — Widow receiving family pension after husband (Upper Division Teacher, Tribal Welfare Department) died in harness on 21.01.2005 — Central Bank of India (respondent No. 3) blocked her ATM card and made recovery of Rs. 2,34,008/- alleged excess payment, deducting Rs. 5,600/- in December 2015 and January 2016 without any notice — No misrepresentation or fraud on the petitioner's part; respondents filed no document showing fraud — Court, relying on Thomas Daniel v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 438 (summarising situations in which employer recoveries are impermissible, including from Class III/IV employees, retired employees, and where excess payment ran beyond five years), held that even if the excess was paid owing to a wrong interpretation of the rules, the petitioner cannot be subjected to hardship by recovery — Calculation chart of pension (Annexure P-1) quashed; respondents directed to refund the amount already deducted — Writ petition allowed.

¶1

¶2

Reserved on 08.04.2025 Pronouncement on 07.07.2025

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPS No. 1022 of 2016

¶6

1 - Smt. Uma Dwivedi W/o Late Sarju Prasad Dwivedi, Aged About 56 Years R/o Swarn Jayanti Nagar, B-1, Swarn Jayanti Nagar, Ring Road 2, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh

¶7

... Petitioner

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Principal Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh

¶10

2 - The Office Of Joint Director, Treasury, Accounts And Pension, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶11

3 - Central Bank Of India, Through Its Assistant General Manager, Branch Juna Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶12

... Respondent(s)

¶13

For Petitioner(s)	: Ms. Smriti Ekka on behalf of Mr. Siddharth Pandey, Advocate
For State/Respondent	: Mr. Abhishek Singh, PL
Nos. 1 & 2
For RespondentNo. 3	: Mr.ParthShrivastava,Advocate

¶14

Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput

¶15

C A V Order

¶16

The petitioner by this petition has prayed for quashment of recovery chart (Annexure

¶17

P-1) issued by respondent No. 3. This apart, a prayer for a direction to refund the amount already recovered has also been made.

¶18

¶19

The case of the petitioner is that her husband who was working as Upper Division Teacher in Tribal Welfare department died in harness on 21.01.2005 survived by his wife (the petitioner herein). After the retirement of her husband all the retiral dues were paid to the petitioner as is evident from authorization letter dated 21.03.2006 (Annexure P-2). The pension of the petitioner was being paid from Central Bank of India, Brach Juna, Bilaspur, CG (respondent No.3 herein) to her account No. 1415012850. Vide letter dated 04.04.2006 the District Treasury Officer, Bilaspur (respondent No. 2) informed respondent No. 3 that till 21.01.2012 the petitioner would be entitled to get pension of Rs. 5,645/- per month and then from 22.01.2012 she would be entitled to get Rs. 2130/-.

¶20

The petitioner is said to suffer some skin disease and therefore, instead of going to bank she withdraws her pension amount by using ATM card. According to her, she has no other source of livelihood except the pension and that the respondent No. 3 has even blocked her ATM card. When she contracted the bank authority as to why her ATM card has been blocked, she was informed of the impending recovery of Rs. 2,34,008/- from her pension amount. The petitioner when requested for the recovery order, the bank did not provide the same to her except the calculation chart (Annexure P-1). The petitioner is stated to get the pension of Rs. 11,029/- per month but in the month of December 2015 and January 2016 to her utter surprise a deduction of Rs. 5,600/- was made from her pension. This has been done by respondent No. 3 without issuance of any notice and without any authority under the law. Therefore, the calculation chart of recovery (Annexure P-1) is sought to be quashed, and the amount already recovered is sought to be refunded to her.

¶21

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of respondent No. 3 making recovery from the pension amount of the petitioner without putting her under prior notice, is illegal arbitrary and without the authority of law. She submits that though the petitioner frequented to the bank time and again yet the respondent No. 3 did not heed to he request for making payment either by withdrawal form or by the ATM. She submits that as there is no misrepresentation on fraud on the part of the petitioner, the recovery made is illegal.

¶22

Referring to Rule 47 of the MP/CG Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 learned counsel for the State submits that the State government has decided that after expiry of seven

¶23

¶24

year the deceased shall be entitled to a contributory family pension 30% on the last drawn salary and therefore, the respondents are entitled to make recovery of the excess amount paid to her. Counsel for the respondent No. 3 also made almost the similar submission taking support from Rule 47 of the MP/CG Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 and thus submits that the recovery of the excess payment being made from the petitioner is just and proper.

¶25

Be that as it may, considering the issue relating to recovery of excess payment already made, the Supreme Court has in number of decision has held that if there is no misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the petitioner, the recovery cannot be allowed to be made. The relevant portion of the recent decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Thomas Daniel Vs. State of Keral & others reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 438 it has been held as under:-

¶26

XXX XXX XXX

¶27

It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship which would govern employees on the issue of recovery, where payments have mistakenly been made by the employer, in excess of their entitlement. Be that as it may, based on the decisions referred to hereinabove, we may, as a ready reference, summarise the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law:

¶28

(i) Recovery from the employees belonging to Class III and Class IV service (or Group C and Group D service).

¶29

(ii) Recovery from the retired employees, or the employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery.

¶30

(iii) Recovery from the employees, when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery is issued.

¶31

(iv) Recovery in cases where an employee has wrongfully been required to discharge duties of a higher post, and has been paid accordingly, even though he should have rightfully been required to work against an inferior post.

¶32

(v) In any other case, where the court arrives at the conclusion, that recovery if made from the employee, would be iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary to such an extent, as would far outweigh the equitable balance of the employer's right to recover."

¶33

¶34

Thus, the respondents have not filed any document to show whether there was any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the petitioner as a result of which she received the payment of excess amount of pension. This Court is not required to go on the aspect whether the petitioner is entitled or not entitled for the amount so paid to her but even if it has been paid on account of wrong interpretation of the rules, the petitioner cannot be put to a hardship by way of recovery.

¶35

In view of the above factual and legal position, the calculation chart of pension (Annexure P-1) is hereby quashed and at the same time the respondents are directed to refund the amount already deducted from the pension of the petitioner.

¶36

The petition is allowed.

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

(Sachin Singh Rajput)

¶39

JUDGE

¶40

Pawan

Smt. Uma Dwivedi v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Uma Dwivedi v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashok Kumar Chandraker Vs Kamal Kurre

Mohan Lal Nayak Vs Sunil Panigrahi

Tarun Kumar Baghel Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Saran Ram Kodaku Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Chandan Ram Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Virendra Mohan Singh Vs Arun Kumar Pandey @ Lallu Maharaj