AMOLA BAI vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

<div> 1<br /> <b>2026:CGHC:13831</b><br /> <br /> <br /> 2026:CGHC:13831<br /> <b>NAFR </b><br /> <b>HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR</b><br /> <b>WPS No. 1978 of 2022</b><br />  Amola Bai W/o Late Ramkhilawan Sharma Aged About 72 Years <br /> Village - Devkirari, Post Office - Bitkuli, Tahsil - Bilha, District - <br /> Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.<br /> <b>... Petitioner(s)</b> <br /> <b>versus</b><br /> <b>1.</b> State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Revenue Department, <br /> Mahanadi Bhawan, New Mantralaya, District - Raipur <br /> Chhattisgarh.<br /> <b>2.</b> The Manager, Central Bank Of India Branch - Bilha, District - <br /> Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.<br /> <b>3.</b> The Senior Treasury Officer, District Treasury, Bilaspur <br /> Chhattisgarh.<br /> <b>... Respondent(s) </b><br /></div><table><thead><tr><th>For Petitioner</th><th>:</th><th>Ms. Diksha Jaiswal, Advocate</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>For State</td><td>:</td><td>Mr. Abhishek Singh, P.L.</td></tr><tr><td>For Respondents No. 2</td><td>:</td><td>Mr. Anand Shukla, Advocate</td></tr></tbody></table><div><br /> <b> Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey</b><br /> <b>Order On Board</b><br /> <b>23.3.2026</b><br /></div><table><thead><tr><th>1)</th><th></th><th>By way of this petition, petitioner has sought following reliefs:-</th></tr></thead><tbody></tbody></table><table><thead><tr><th>10.1</th><th>The Hon&#x27;ble Court may kindly be pleased to</th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>call for the entire records pertaining to the case</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>from possession of the respondents for its kind</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>perusal;</td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table><div><br /><br /> 2<br /> <b>2026:CGHC:13831</b><br /></div><table><thead><tr><th>10.2</th><th>The Hon&#x27;ble Court may kindly be pleased to</th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>issue a suitable writ/order/direction the respondent</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>bank to stop illegal deduction made from the family</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>pension account and return the amount already</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>deduction illegally.</td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table><table><thead><tr><th>10.3</th><th>The Hon&#x27;ble Court may kindly be pleased to</th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>issue a suitable writ/order/direction commanding</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>the respondent authorities to pay the petitioner the</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>part of family pension deducted for recovery of</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>excess payment with suitable interest;</td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table><table><thead><tr><th>10.4</th><th>That, the Hon&#x27;ble Court may kindly be</th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>pleased to grant any other relief, as if may deem fit</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>and appropriate.</td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table><table><thead><tr><th>10.5</th><th>Cost of the petition my also be given.</th></tr></thead><tbody></tbody></table><table><thead><tr><th>2)</th><th></th><th>Facts of present case are that petitioner’s husband, namely,</th></tr></thead><tbody></tbody></table><div><br /> Ramkhilawan Sharma was working on the post of Patwari ; he <br /> stood retired from services on 15.7.1989 and thereafter, he was <br /> receiving pension. Due to some mistake, petitioner’s husband was <br /> paid higher pension from March, 2014 till February, 2018 to the <br /> tune of Rs. 4,52,592/- and when such mistake was detected, <br /> respondent-Bank approached the petitioner, who signed an <br /> undertaking, whereby bank was permitted to deduct Rs. 4,500/- <br /> per month from the pension. However, petitioner’s husband died <br /> on 27.4.2021 but on the basis of said undertaking, respondent-<br /> bank continued to deduct Rs. 4,500/- from the family pension. <br /> Petitioner, who is the wife of deceased employee has filed this <br /> petition challenging the illegal deduction from the family pension.<br /></div><table><thead><tr><th>3)</th><th></th><th>Ms. Diksha Jaiswal, counsel for the petitioner submits that though</th></tr></thead><tbody></tbody></table><div><br /> petitioner’s husband signed an undertaking but it lost its efficacy <br /> after his death and it cannot be used against his wife, who is <br /><br /> 3<br /> <b>2026:CGHC:13831</b><br /> receiving family pension, thus deduction of Rs. 4,500/- per month <br /> from family pension is illegal and contrary to the law. She further <br /> submits that petitioner is a 72 years old lady, whose means of <br /> survival is family pension, therefore a direction may be issued to <br /> respondent-Bank to restore the family pension and make payment <br /> of the amount already recovered from family pension.<br /></div><table><thead><tr><th>4)</th><th></th><th>On the other hand, Mr. Anand Shukla, counsel appearing for</th></tr></thead><tbody></tbody></table><div><br /> respondent-Bank submits that due to mistake pension of <br /> petitioner’s husband was fixed at higher side and it continued from <br /> month of March, 2014 till February, 2018, therefore a decision was <br /> taken by the Bank to recover it and an undertaking was signed by <br /> Lt. Ramkhilawan Sharma during his lifetime. He further submits <br /> that a separate certificate was given by Lt. Ramkhilawan Sharma <br /> to adjust the excess payment from his successor(s), therefore this <br /> petition is misconceived and deserves to be dismissed.<br /></div><table><thead><tr><th>5)</th><th></th><th>Learned State counsel fairly submits that there is dispute between</th></tr></thead><tbody></tbody></table><div><br /> petitioner and the bank.<br /></div><table><thead><tr><th>6)</th><th></th><th>I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the</th></tr></thead><tbody></tbody></table><div><br /> material available on record with utmost circumspection.<br /></div><table><thead><tr><th>7)</th><th></th><th>Admittedly, husband of petitioner was a pensioner, who was</th></tr></thead><tbody></tbody></table><div><br /> receiving monthly pension. It is the case of respondent-bank that <br /> excess pension was paid to him from March, 2014 till February, <br /> 2018 to the tune of Rs. 4,52,592/-, therefore a decision was taken <br /> to recover the said amount. It is not in dispute that Ramkhilawan <br /><br /> 4<br /> <b>2026:CGHC:13831</b><br /> Sharma signed an undertaking, which permitted the bank to <br /> recover Rs. 4,500/- per month from his pension. He died on <br /> 27.4.2021. After death of Ramkhilawan Sharma the undertaking <br /> can’t be used against his successor and recovery of excess <br /> pension paid to Ramkhilawan Sharma during his lifetime cannot <br /> be recovered/ adjusted against the family pension, which is being <br /> paid to the petitioner.<br /> <b>8)</b> In view of the aforesaid discussion, in my opinion, the decision <br /> taken by respondent-Bank to recover/ adjust the excess pension <br /> paid to the petitioner’s husband from the family pension is illegal <br /></div><table><thead><tr><th>and arbitrary. Accordingly, this petition is</th><th>allowed</th><th>and respondent-</th></tr></thead><tbody></tbody></table><div><br /> bank is directed to restore the family pension of petitioner and <br /> refund the amount already recovered from the family pension, <br /> preferably within period of 30 days from today alongwith interest <br /> @ 6% p.a.<br /> <br /> <b>Sd/-</b><br /> <b>(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)</b><br /> <b> </b> JUDGE<br /> A j i n k y a</div>