The State Bank of India vs Rajkali Devi @ Raj Kali Kuar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.623 of 2022
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8386 of 2021
CNR No. BRHC010937982022
======================================================
1. The State Bank of India through its Manager, Centralised Pension
Processing Centre, 4th Floor, Administrative Office (Anta Ghat), J.C. Road,
P.S.- Pirbahore, Patna - 800004.
2. The Manager, State Bank of India, Marhowrah Branch (Branch Code No. -
3211), P.S. - Marhowrah, District- Saran.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. Rajkali Devi @ Raj Kali Kuar Wife of Late Rameshwar Singh @
Ramaishwar Singh Resident of Village - Manorpur, P.S. - Amnaour, District-
Saran.
2. The State of Bihar, through the Principal Secretary, Road Construction then
Public Works Department (P.W.D.), Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Principal Secretary, Road Construction Department then Public Works
Department (P.W.D.), Government of Bihar, Visheshvaraiya Bhawan, Bailey
Road, Patna-800001.
4. The Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department then Public Works
Department (P.W.D.), Saran at Chapra.
5. The Accountant General, Bihar, Patna, A.G. Office, Beerchand Patel Path,
Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Rakesh Kumar Singh
For the State : Mr.Ms. Usha Kumari, GA 13
Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, AC to GA 13
For respondent no. 1 : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh
For the Accountant General : Dr. Anand Kumar
Ms. Vijeta Kumari
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH KUMAR
C.A.V. JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA)
Date : 28-10-2026

The present letters patent appeal has been preferred by
the appellant-State Bank of India against the judgment, dated

Patna High Court L.P.A No.623 of 2022 dt.28-10-2026
2/13
30.09.2022, passed by the learned Single Judge, in C.W.J.C. No.
8386 of 2021, whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent no.
1-writ petitioner was allowed and the decision of the appellant-
Bank to recover a sum of Rs. 3,51,020/- towards excess payment
of family pension was quashed.
2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the
husband of the respondent no. 1, late Rameshwar Singh, retired
from service on 30.06.1982 while working as a Road Mazdoor in
the Public Works Department, Saran at Chapra. He was granted
pension with effect from 01.07.1982 and died on 09.01.1988. After
his death, the respondent no. 1, being his widow, became entitled
to family pension and she started receiving the same through the
Marhowrah Branch of the appellant-Bank. The family pension was
paid continuously for several years.
3. During the course of processing and subsequent
scrutiny of the pension account, certain entries were found to be
erroneous in the pension processing system of the Bank. The
nature of the pension, in the case of the respondent no. 1, had been
entered as “regular pension” instead of “family pension”. The date
of birth of the respondent no. 1 was also entered in the Bank as
02.03.1922. As a consequence of these erroneous entries, even
after revision of pension under the Sixth Central Pay Commission,

Patna High Court L.P.A No.623 of 2022 dt.28-10-2026
3/13
the old-age benefits continued to be paid by the appellant-Bank by
treating her as a regular pensioner.
4. The Bank subsequently detected the aforesaid error
and corrected the pension category from regular pension to family
pension. On recalculation, the Bank took the stand that an excess
amount of Rs. 3,51,020/- had been paid to the respondent no. 1
during the period from 01.04.2007 to 30.11.2018.
5. The alleged excess payment had continued for a
period of more than eleven years before the recovery was initiated.
By letter, dated 17.12.2018, the respondent no. 1 was informed
that an excess amount of Rs.3,51,020/- had been paid to her
towards pension and the same was required to be refunded. In
December, 2018 itself, the appellant-Bank reduced the monthly
family pension of the respondent no. 1 from Rs.15,445/- to
Rs.7,196/-.
6. Challenging the aforesaid recovery of the pension
amount, the respondent no. 1 approached this Court by filing
C.W.J.C. No.8386 of 2021. The case of the respondent no. 1-writ
petitioner before the learned Single Judge was that the alleged
excess payment was the result of an error committed by the
appellant-Bank itself and there was no act or omission on the part
of the respondent no. 1-writ petitioner. It was her further case that

Patna High Court L.P.A No.623 of 2022 dt.28-10-2026
4/13
she had no role in fixing the pension and she had not contributed
to the excess payment. She further pleaded that she was dependent
upon the amount of family pension given to her for her survival
and recovery from such meagre amount of pension would cause
hardship to her.
7. The learned Single Judge, upon consideration of the
materials on record, found that the excess payment had resulted
from erroneous entries made by the officials of the appellant-Bank
and there was no material suggesting any misrepresentation or
fraud on the part of the respondent no. 1-writ petitioner. It was also
noticed that the excess payment of Rs. 3,51,020/- had continued
from 01.04.2007 to 30.11.2018, covering a period of about eleven
years and eight months. The learned Single Judge held that the
appellant-Bank was not justified in recovering the excess family
pension from the respondent no. 1-writ petitioner. The decision of
the Bank to recover the aforesaid excess amount was quashed. The
letters, dated 17.12.2018 and 30.12.2021, issued by the Assistant
General Manager, Centralized Pension Processing Centre, State
Bank of India, Patna, concerning recovery of the excess pension
were also quashed.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Bank
argued that the learned Single Judge has erred in quashing the

Patna High Court L.P.A No.623 of 2022 dt.28-10-2026
5/13
recovery of Rs. 3,51,020/- paid in excess to the respondent no. 1-
writ petitioner. The excess payment was not the result of any
lawful determination of her family pension. The pension
processing system of the Bank had erroneously recorded her
pension as “regular pension” instead of “family pension” and her
date of birth as 02.03.1922. On account of these erroneous entries,
the old-age benefit continued to be extended to her even after
revision of pension under the Sixth Central Pay Commission,
though she was receiving family pension. Upon detection of the
error, the Bank corrected the pension category and found that an
excess amount of Rs.3,51,020/- had been paid during the
concerned period.
9. It has further been submitted that the respondent no.
1-writ petitioner had no substantive entitlement to the amount
which was paid to her on account of the erroneous entries in the
pension-processing system of the Bank. The mere fact that the
error was committed by the Bank cannot create entitlement to the
respondent no. 1-writ petitioner to retain the amount, which was
never payable to her.
10. The respondent no. 1-writ petitioner had given an
undertaking by putting her thumb impression, where she agreed to
refund or make good any amount which was subsequently found to

Patna High Court L.P.A No.623 of 2022 dt.28-10-2026
6/13
have been credited in her account in excess of the amount payable
to her. The learned Single Judge erred in treating that undertaking
as inconsequential merely because the undertaking was not given
in the context of a revised pay fixation.
11. Reliance, in this regard, has been placed on the
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of High Court
of Punjab and Haryana & Ors. v. Jagdev Singh, reported in
(2016) 14 SCC 267 .
12. Learned counsel submits that the principle emerging
from Jagdev Singh (supra) is that where the recipient has
expressly undertaken to refund any excess payment, the equitable
protection against recovery cannot be invoked ignoring such
undertaking.
13. Learned counsel thereafter contended that the
learned Single Judge has placed great reliance on the decision of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of State of Punjab v.
Rafiq Masih, reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 , without examining
whether the facts of the present case justify an absolute prohibition
against recovery. The respondent no. 1 was not deprived of her
family pension. The Bank only corrected the erroneous benefit
which had been extended to her because her pension had been
wrongly treated as regular pension in place of family pension and

Patna High Court L.P.A No.623 of 2022 dt.28-10-2026
7/13
due to her advance age, she was being given the benefit of
enhancement of regular pension.
14. The governing principle is that an amount paid
without entitlement cannot ordinarily be retained merely because
the excess payment resulted from a bona fide mistake of the
authority.
15. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, in the case of Chandi Prasad Uniyal & Ors. v.
State of Uttarakhand & Ors., reported in (2012) 8 SCC 417 ,
wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that excess public money
paid due to wrong or irregular fixation can be recovered, subject to
the limited equitable exceptions recognized by the Court.
16. The learned Single Judge has not properly
appreciated the distinction between the existence of an error in
making the payment and the right of the respondent no. 1 to retain
the amount after the error is detected.
17. Learned counsel next points out that the recovery
was not made by directing the respondent no. 1 to deposit the
entire amount of Rs. 3,51,020/- at once. The Bank adjusted Rs.
3,614/- per month from the family pension of Rs. 11,530/- and
continued to credit Rs.7,916/- per month to the respondent no. 1.
Till July, 2021, only a sum of Rs.1,12,024/- was recovered. The

Patna High Court L.P.A No.623 of 2022 dt.28-10-2026
8/13
manner of recovery, therefore, was itself so well structured in
order to avoid any immediate financial burden upon the
respondent no. 1.
18. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent no. 1-writ petitioner argued that the learned Single
Judge has rightly quashed the recovery of Rs. 3,51,020/-. The
respondent no. 1 is an illiterate widow and had no role either in
fixation of her family pension or in the calculation thereof. The
excess payment resulted entirely at the end of the Bank. There was
no misrepresentation or fraud or concealment on the part of the
respondent no. 1-writ petitioner. The respondent no. 1 had only
received the pension as calculated and credited by the Bank. The
Bank cannot shift the consequence of its own error upon an
illiterate widow of advance age by recovering a substantial amount
from her family pension. The undertaking relied upon by the Bank
cannot be treated as an absolute authority to recover the amount in
the facts of the present case.
19. The learned Single Judge, having found that the
excess payment was attributable to the Bank's own error and there
was no fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the respondent,
rightly interfered with the recovery. The judgment under appeal
calls for no interference and deserves to be dismissed.

Patna High Court L.P.A No.623 of 2022 dt.28-10-2026
9/13
20. Having considered the rival submissions and the
materials on record, the question which arises for consideration is
whether, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the
appellant-Bank was justified in recovering the excess payment of
family pension amounting to Rs. 3,51,020/- from the respondent
no. 1-writ petitioner.
21. There can be no quarrel with the proposition laid
down in Chandi Prasad Uniyal (supra) that an amount paid in
excess of the recipient's lawful entitlement does not become
legally payable merely because the payment was made through a
bona fide mistake. The absence of fraud or misrepresentation, by
itself, does not extinguish the right of the payer to seek recovery.
The principle, however, has to be applied keeping in view the
exceptional circumstances in which recovery may become
inequitable, harsh or arbitrary. The decision, in the case of Rafiq
Masih (supra), recognizes that the right to recover an excess
payment and the equitable considerations governing its
enforcement are distinct matters.
22. It appears that there is no material to suggest that the
respondent no. 1 had any role in the erroneous classification of her
pension or that she possessed the requisite knowledge to
appreciate that the amount being credited to her account was in

Patna High Court L.P.A No.623 of 2022 dt.28-10-2026
10/13
excess of her entitlement because she was an illiterate lady and is
the widow of the late employee, who retired as Mazdoor. The
respondent no. 1 herself was not an employee of the Bank, the
family pension represented a continuing benefit flowing from the
employment of her husband.
23. The relationship between the employer, the pension
disbursing agency and the family pensioner cannot, therefore, be
examined exclusively through the prism of an ordinary monetary
transaction. The circumstances involving in the case does not
confer upon her a right to retain every amount paid in excess. , but
it is undoubtedly relevant in determining whether recovery, in the
particular facts of the case, would be equitable.
24. In paragraph 14 of the Chandi Prasad Uniyal
(supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that any amount
paid/received without authority of law can always be recovered
barring few exception of extreme hardship, but not as a matter of
right.
25. The age of the respondent no. 1 is another material
for consideration inasmuch as at the time when the error was
detected and recovery was initiated, she was around 89 years of
age, during which she received the family pension in the ordinary
course. No material has been brought on record to show that she

Patna High Court L.P.A No.623 of 2022 dt.28-10-2026
11/13
had accumulated or retained the excess amount or she was keeping
it as a separate fund or that she was financially in a position to
refund it without serious hardship. On the contrary, the recovery
was sought to be effected from the very family pension upon
which she was depended for her livelihood.
26. This Court is conscious that public money cannot be
permitted to be retained merely on grounds of sympathy and an
institution cannot be deprived of its lawful right to recover an
amount only because its own mistake remained undetected for a
considerable period. At the same time, Chandi Prasad Uniyal
(supra) does not require the Court to disregard the exceptional
hardship which may arise in an individual case. The principle of
recovery has to be applied alongside the equitable limitations
recognized in Rafiq Masih (supra), particularly where the Court
finds that the hardship caused to the recipient would substantially
outweigh the financial interest sought to be taken by the recovery.
27. The existence of an undertaking does not dispense
with an examination of the circumstances in which recovery is
sought, particularly where the recipient is an illiterate widow of
advanced age,at present 94 years, the error originated entirely in
the Bank's own records, and the additional payment continued for
more than eleven years.

Patna High Court L.P.A No.623 of 2022 dt.28-10-2026
12/13
28. In the circumstances, the equitable balance cannot be
determined solely by reference to the amount paid in excess. The
appellant-Bank's interest in correcting its accounts and recovering
amount not lawfully payable is undoubtedly legitimate; however,
the manner in which that right is enforced must also withstand
scrutiny on the touchstone of fairness and proportionality. The
exceptional hardship likely to be caused to the respondent no. 1,
having regard to her advance age and dependence upon family
pension, outweighs the justification for continuing the recovery
against her in the manner impugned in the writ petition.
29. The Court is not laying down any general
proposition that an excess payment of pension can never be
recovered if the error is attributable to the pension disbursing
authority nor it is holding that the absence of fraud or
misrepresentation creates an absolute bar to recovery. The decision
turns upon the cumulative effect of the exceptional circumstances
established in the present case, the advance age of the respondent
no. 1, her illiteracy, her complete lack of involvement in the
erroneous pension classification, the prolonged continuation of the
Bank's own error, the absence of any material indicating deliberate
receipt of an undue benefit and the substantial impact of the
monthly deductions upon her family pension.

Patna High Court L.P.A No.623 of 2022 dt.28-10-2026
13/13
30. The learned Single Judge has interfered with the
recovery in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and as
such, has committed no error warranting interference by this Court
in the present appeal.
31. In the result, this appeal cannot succeed and is
dismissed accordingly.
32. The interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands
disposed.
(Anil Kumar Sinha, J.)
Vikash Kumar, J.:-
I agree.
(Vikash Kumar, J.)
Prabhakar Anand/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE 18-09-2026
Uploading Date 28-10-2026
Transmission Date N/A