01Facts
Rajkali Devi’s husband retired as a Road Mazdoor in the Bihar Public Works Department in 1982 and died in 1988; she thereafter received family pension through the State Bank of India.
p. 2 · ¶ 2–3The Bank’s records mistakenly classified her pension as “regular pension” and recorded her date of birth as 2 March 1922. As a result, it continued paying old-age benefits after the Sixth Central Pay Commission revision.
pp. 2–3 · ¶ 3–5In 2018, the Bank corrected the classification and assessed an overpayment of ₹3,51,020 for the period 1 April 2007 to 30 November 2018.
pp. 2–3 · ¶ 3–5The Bank began recovering the amount from her pension. The Single Judge quashed the recovery and related letters; the Bank appealed, relying in part on an undertaking by Rajkali Devi to repay excess amounts.
pp. 4–6 · ¶ 7, 10–12She was an illiterate widow, had no role in the error, and was about 89 when recovery began.
pp. 8–11 · ¶ 18, 22, 2502Issues
i.Whether the Bank was justified in recovering ₹3,51,020 in excess family pension from Rajkali Devi in the circumstances of the case.
p. 9 · ¶ 20ii.Whether the undertaking to refund excess payments precluded relief from recovery despite the circumstances giving rise to hardship.
pp. 11–12 · ¶ 2703Law Applied
Under Chandi Prasad Uniyal v. State of Uttarakhand, an amount paid without authority of law may generally be recovered, subject to limited exceptions involving extreme hardship; absence of fraud or misrepresentation alone does not extinguish the right to recover.
p. 9 · ¶ 21 · p. 10 · ¶ 24State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih recognizes that the right to recover and the equitable limits on enforcing that right are distinct, and that recovery may be inequitable in exceptional circumstances.
pp. 9–10 · ¶ 21, 26The Court also held that the existence of an undertaking does not eliminate the need to examine the circumstances of recovery.
p. 11 · ¶ 2704Reasoning
The Court accepted that the excess amount was not lawfully payable and that the Bank had a legitimate interest in recovery.
pp. 9–10 · ¶ 21, 26, 28However, the error arose entirely from the Bank’s records; Rajkali Devi was an illiterate family pensioner with no involvement in the classification or knowledge that the payments were excessive. The error continued for more than eleven years, and there was no evidence that she had retained the excess amount or could repay it without serious hardship.
pp. 9–11 · ¶ 22–27Given her advanced age and dependence on family pension, the Court found that the hardship from continued deductions outweighed the Bank’s interest in enforcing recovery in the manner challenged. The undertaking did not alter that assessment.
pp. 11–12 · ¶ 27–2905Holding
The Court held that the Single Judge committed no error in quashing recovery in the particular circumstances of the case.
pp. 12–13 · ¶ 30–32It dismissed the Bank’s appeal, leaving undisturbed the quashing of the recovery of ₹3,51,020 and the related recovery letters.
pp. 12–13 · ¶ 30–32Original Court PDF
The State Bank of IndiavsRajkali Devi @ Raj Kali Kuar
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
