BIMLA NAND JHA vs UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY (SUPPLY DIVISION)

2026:JHHC:18704
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 3718 of 2023
BIMLA NAND JHA, Aged about 77 years, Son of Govind Jha, Resident
of-H.No. 22A, Bipasha Path Uliyan Kadma, P.O & P.S-Kadma, Dist.- East
Singhbhum, Jharkhand. ... … Petitioner(s)

Versus

1. Union of India through Secretary Ministry of Commerce & Industry
(Supply Division) having its office at 5 sansad Marg, Jeevan Tara Building,
P.O & P.S- New Delhi, New Delhi.
2. Chief Controller (Pensions), Central Pension Accounting Office,
Government of India, Having its office at Trkoot-2, Bhikaji Cama Palace,
P.O & P.S- New Delhi, New Delhi
3. Pay & Accounts Officer, Ministry of Finance, Dept. of Expenditure,
Central Pension Accounting Office, Government of India, Having its office
at Trkoot-2, Bhikaji Cama Palace, P.O & P.S- New Delhi, New Delhi
4.Director (Q.A)-II Directorate of Quality Assurance, Tata Steel Utilities
and Infrastructure Services Ltd., P.O & P.S having its office at Burma
mines, Jamshedpur, Jharkhand
5. Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Centralized Pension Processing
th
Centre, having its office at 4 Floor, Administrative Office, Judges Court
Road, P.O & PS- Patna, Dist Patna, Bihar.
6. Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Kadma Branch (Jamshedpur), P.O
& P.S- Kadma, Dist.- East Singhbhum, Jharkhand. ... … Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shubham Gautam, Advocate
Ms. Shruti Shrestha, Advocate
Mr. Saurav Patel, Advocate
For the UOI : Mrs. Niki Sinha, CGC
--------
JUDGMENT

C.A.V on 01/05/2026 Pronounced on 15/06/2026

The instant writ application has been preferred by the
petitioner for the following reliefs:
“1.i. For issuance of writ in the nature of Mandamus for directions
upon the respondents to immediately start the pension without any
recovery as ordered by the Respondents.
AND/OR
1

2026:JHHC:18704
1. ii. For quashing of letter dated 18.07.2012 (Annexure-4) issued
by the Respondents, wherein and whereby the Respondent No. 4 has
directed the Respondent No. 2 to withdraw the pension in full per
mensem permanently with immediate effect as per Rule 8(1)(b) of
the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 by observing that
the Petitioner has not vacated or surrendered the Quarter No. 30,
L/4, Road No. 8, Farm Area, Kadma, Jamshedpur which amounts
to grave misconduct and so withdrawal of pension in full.
AND/OR
iii. For quashing of Letter dated 19.01.2023 (Annexure-21) issued
by Respondents, wherein and whereby the Respondent. No. 3 issued
order of restarting the pension of the Petitioner w.e.f 16.03.2022
after ensuring that the pension disbursed up to August 2018 was
recovered in full by the bank.
AND/OR
iv. For quashing of letter dated 07.07.2023 (Annexure- 22) issued
by Respondent Bank wherein and whereby the Respondent Bank
has communicated the Petitioner that recovery of Rs. 691799 (Rs.
Six Lakhs Ninety one thousand seven hundred and ninety nine) is to
be made and further it has been indicated to deposit the said
amount in the Bank account and on delay in making such deposit,
the Respondent Bank has full authority to charge interest rate on
such amount.
AND/OR
v. For stay on the operation, execution and implementation of the
impugned orders dated 19.01.2023 (Annexure-21) along with order
dated 07.07.2023 (Annexure-22) during the pendency of the present
writ application.
AND/OR
vi. For directions on the Respondents Bank to de freeze the account
namely SBI Savings Account No. 11008747102, Kadma Branch,
Kadma, Jamshedpur with immediate effect
AND/OR
vii. For payment of interest @ 9% on the amount which was
illegally withheld by not making payment of pension from 2018 to
till date.
AND/OR
viii. Pass such other writ/ writs, order/ orders, direction/ directions
as Your Lordship may deem fit and proper.”

2. The brief facts of the case as per the pleadings are that the
petitioner was an employee under the erstwhile Directorate of Quality
Assurance, Jamshedpur, functioning under the administrative control of
the Directorate General of Supplies and Disposals, Ministry of Commerce
and Industry, Government of India. The petitioner retired from service on
31.01.2006 and became entitled to receive regular pension with effect from
01.02.2006.
2

2026:JHHC:18704
The dispute arose on account of the alleged non-vacation of
Quarter No. 30 L/4, Road No. 8, Farm Area, Kadma, Jamshedpur and
subsequently the respondents passed order dated 18.07.2012 directing
withdrawal of the petitioner’s full pension permanently. Consequent
communication was also issued to the respondent Bank/CPPC on
08.06.2013, and the petitioner’s pension was thereafter stopped from
September, 2018 onwards.
3. The petitioner thereafter attempted to resolve the issue and
approached Tata Steel Limited for issuance of No Objection Certificate in
respect of the premises; however, Tata Steel Limited, vide letter dated
29.01.2019, stated that the flat had been allotted to Quality Assurance on
12.06.1997 and therefore NOC could not be issued. The petitioner also
served legal notice dated 08.03.2019 with respect to holding/freezing of
his SBI Savings Account No. 11008747102, Kadma Branch, Jamshedpur.
4. Subsequently, vide letter dated 19.01.2023, the Pay and
Accounts Office, Department of Commerce (Supply Division), Kolkata,
communicated regarding restart of the petitioner’s pension with effect
from 16.03.2022, but made the same conditional upon recovery of pension
disbursed up to August, 2018. Thereafter, the State Bank of India,
Centralized Pension Processing Centre, Patna, vide letter dated 07.07.2023,
sought recovery of Rs. 6,91,799/- from the petitioner towards alleged
excess pension for the period 01.02.2013 to 31.08.2018.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Rule 8 of the
Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules does not confer unbridled power
upon the respondents to permanently withhold the entire pension of a
retired employee without following due process of law. Pension can be
withheld or withdrawn only in accordance with the procedure prescribed
under law and only upon a legally sustainable finding of grave misconduct.
It was further submitted that the petitioner had vacated the
allotted quarter on 22.04.2006, soon after his superannuation, and had also
submitted his new residence/address proof to the concerned respondents.
3

2026:JHHC:18704
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the
respondents, after having themselves taken a decision to restart the pension
with effect from 16.03.2022, could not have made the same conditional
upon recovery of Rs. 6,91,799/- from the petitioner.
7. It was further submitted that the respondent-Bank is merely a
pension disbursing agency and could not have independently frozen the
petitioner’s pension/savings account or insisted upon recovery of the
alleged amount without there being a valid and legally enforceable order
passed after due process. The action of the Bank in withholding the
account and demanding recovery has deprived the petitioner of his
livelihood and pensionary benefits, and is violative of Articles 14, 21 and
300A of the Constitution of India.
8. Per contra , learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State
respondents, relying upon the counter affidavit, submitted that the
petitioner was occupying Government Quarter No. 30 L/4, Road No. 8,
Farm Area, Kadma, Jamshedpur even after retirement on 31.01.2006,
despite issuance of several notices for vacating the Government
accommodation. It was submitted that due to non-vacation of the quarter,
the competent authority took a decision to stop/withdraw the pension of
the petitioner permanently under Rule 8(1)(b) of the Central Civil Services
(Pension) Rules, 1972.
It was further submitted that the pension was required to be
stopped permanently in terms of the Special Seal Authority and that the
pension which was disbursed up to August, 2018 was liable to be
recovered before restarting pension with effect from 16.03.2022.
9. The Respondent-Bank submitted that it acted only in terms of
the instructions received from the pension sanctioning authority/CPPC and
that the pension could not be restarted until recovery of the amount of
overpayment.
10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal
of the materials available on record, it appears that the principal issue in
4

2026:JHHC:18704
the present writ petition is whether the respondents were justified in
permanently withdrawing the full pension of the petitioner under
Rule 8(1)(b) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, on the
allegation of non-vacation of quarter , and whether the respondents can
compel recovery of Rs. 6,91,799/- from the petitioner as a pre-condition
for restarting his pension .
11. It is not in dispute that the petitioner retired from service on
31.01.2006 as a “Record Keeper” and was receiving pension thereafter. It
is also evident from the materials on record that the order dated 18.07.2012
directed withdrawal of the petitioner’s full pension permanently, treating
the alleged non-vacation of the quarter as grave misconduct. Such an order
has serious civil consequences. Pension is a property right and a measure
of social security for a retired employee. Therefore, an order permanently
withdrawing the entire pension of a retired employee cannot be sustained
unless it is preceded by proper procedure, lawful enquiry and a clear
finding of grave misconduct in accordance with the statutory rules.
12. The materials placed on record do not demonstrate that any
regular departmental proceeding or enquiry, in the nature required for
imposing such a drastic consequence, was conducted against the petitioner.
The allegation of occupation/non-vacation of quarter may, at best, give rise
to proceedings for eviction, recovery of occupation charges, damages or
penal rent in accordance with law. However, the said allegation, by itself
and without proper adjudication, cannot justify permanent withdrawal of
full pension, which is the only source of sustenance of a retired employee.
13. The impugned show-cause notice as well as the consequential
order passed under Rule 8(1)(b) of the Central Civil Services (Pension)
Rules, 1972, are non est in the eyes of law, inasmuch as, the allegation of
non-vacation of residential quarter, even if assumed for the sake of
argument, does not constitute ‘grave misconduct’ within the meaning and
contemplation of the aforesaid Rules so as to warrant permanent
withdrawal of full pension.
5

2026:JHHC:18704
In the present case, the position is even clearer, as Annexures-
11 and 12 to the writ application show that the petitioner had vacated the
residential premises on 22.04.2006, soon after his superannuation, and had
also furnished his new address proof to the concerned authorities. The
petitioner’s pension was also started from 01.02.2006, which itself
indicates that the respondents had accepted his retirement and pensionary
entitlement. Therefore, initiation of action under Rule 8(1)(b) on the
premise of alleged non-vacation of quarter was misconceived, without
jurisdiction and bad in law.
14. This Court further finds that the letter dated 19.01.2023 itself
records that the pension of the petitioner was to be restarted with effect
from 16.03.2022. However, the same was made subject to recovery of
pension disbursed up to August, 2018. The consequential communication
dated 07.07.2023 issued by the respondent-Bank demanded recovery of Rs.
6,91,799/- from the petitioner. Such recovery is sought to be made after
several years from a retired employee/pensioner, without there being any
allegation that the petitioner had obtained the amount by fraud or
misrepresentation.
15. The alleged payment was made by the pension disbursing
authorities themselves. In such circumstances, recovery from the petitioner
at this stage would be harsh, arbitrary and inequitable.
16. At this stage, it would also be profitable to refer to the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in “State of Punjab v. Rafiq
1
Masih” , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly laid down the
situations in which recovery of excess payment from an
employee/pensioner would be impermissible in law. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court, after considering the earlier decisions on the issue, summarized the
categories of cases where recovery would be legally impermissible. For
ready reference, paragraph no.18 of the said judgment is quoted
hereinbelow:

1

(2015) 4 SCC 334
6

2026:JHHC:18704
“18. 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:
(i) Recovery from the employees belonging to Class III and Class IV service (or
Group C and Group D service).
(ii) Recovery from the retired employees, or the employees who are due to retire
within one year, of the order of recovery.
(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.
(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.
(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.”

17. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present
case, it is evident that the petitioner is a retired Class-III employee and the
impugned recovery is sought to be affected from his pensionary benefits
after a long lapse of time. There is no allegation that the petitioner
obtained the pension amount by fraud, misrepresentation or suppression of
material facts. The amount was disbursed through the regular pension
payment mechanism by the respondents themselves. Therefore, the case of
the petitioner squarely falls within clause (i) of paragraph no. 18 of “Rafiq
Masih” (supra), as the recovery is sought from a Claas-III retired
employee. The case also attracts clause (iii), even assuming that excess
payment has been made & clause (v), inasmuch as, recovery from an aged
pensioner, whose pension itself remained stopped/withheld for a
considerable period, would be iniquitous, harsh and arbitrary to such an
extent that it would far outweigh any alleged right of the respondents to
recover.
18. Thus, the demand for recovery of Rs. 6,91,799/- from the
petitioner as a pre-condition for restarting/releasing pension is legally
unsustainable. The respondents cannot be permitted to deprive the
petitioner of his pensionary benefits and simultaneously insist upon
recovery of alleged excess pension paid years earlier, particularly when no
fraud or misrepresentation is attributable to the petitioner.
19. The action of freezing/withholding the SBI Savings Account
No. 11008747102, Kadma Branch, Jamshedpur, is also not sustainable,
7

2026:JHHC:18704
inasmuch as, the petitioner cannot be deprived of access to his
pension/savings account without authority of law and without due process.
The Bank, being only a disbursing agency, is bound to act in accordance
with valid instructions issued in accordance with law, but cannot continue
to deprive the petitioner of his account and pensionary dues on the strength
of an unsustainable recovery demand.
20. Having regards to the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the
considered view that the order/letter dated 18.07.2012, to the extent it
directs permanent withdrawal of the full pension of the petitioner, is
unsustainable in law. The letter dated 19.01.2023, to the extent it makes
restarting of pension conditional upon recovery of pension disbursed up to
August, 2018, is also liable to be interfered with. Consequently, the letter
dated 07.07.2023 issued by the respondent Bank demanding recovery of
Rs. 6,91,799/- from the petitioner is also liable to be quashed.
21. Accordingly, the order/letter dated 18.07.2012, the letter dated
19.01.2023 to the extent indicated above, and the letter dated 07.07.2023
demanding recovery of Rs. 6,91,799/- from the petitioner, are quashed and
set aside.
22. The respondents are directed to restart/release the regular
pension of the petitioner forthwith, without insisting upon recovery of Rs.
6,91,799/- as a pre-condition. The respondent Bank is further directed to
defreeze SBI Savings Account No. 11008747102, Kadma Branch,
Jamshedpur, and permit the petitioner to operate the same in accordance
with law.
23. The respondents shall also calculate and release the arrears of
pension payable to the petitioner within a period of 6 weeks from the date
of receipt/production of a copy of this order; failing which the concerned
Respondent shall also be liable to pay compound interest @ 6 % per
annum with quarterly rest from the date the regular pension has been
illegally stopped till the payment of arrear of illegally withheld pension.
If any legally recoverable occupation charges/damages are
8

2026:JHHC:18704
claimed by the respondents with respect to the quarter, it shall be open to
the respondents to take recourse to appropriate proceedings strictly in
accordance with law; however, such claim shall not be made a ground to
withhold the entire pension of the petitioner or to freeze his bank account
without due process.
24. The writ petition is accordingly allowed in the aforesaid terms.
Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of.



(Deepak Roshan, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
Dated: 15/06/2026
Amit
A.F.R
Uploaded on 29/06/2026
9