Delhi District Court
M R Gadekar (Sr. Citizen) vs Government Of Nct Delhi And Ors on 24 September, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. SACHIN SOOD,
DISTRICT JUDGE-01 (CENTRAL), THC, DELHI.
CS No. 160/2020
CNR No. DLCT 01 002061 2020
Shri M R Gadekar
S/o Late Shri Ramchandrarao Gadekar
R/o Flat no 100, Raja Enclave,
Road no 44, Pitampura
New Delhi- 110034 ....PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
1. Government of NCT Delhi
through Chief Secretary of Govt of NCT Delhi
Delhi Secretariat, I P Estate,
New Delhi-110002
2. Pay and Accounts office No X,
Pay and Accounts Officer
Through Proper Channel
Delhi Administration, Delhi Sachivalaya,
I P Estate, New Delhi.
3. Bank of Maharashtra
Through its Manager
Karol Bagh Branch,
17A/45, WEA Karol Bagh,
New Delhi-110005 ....DEFENDANTS
Date of Institution: 12.02.2020
Date of Reserving Judgment: 24.09.2025
Date of Judgment: 24.09.2025
CS No 160/2020 Shri M R Gadekar vs Government of NCT Delhi Page No 1/30
JUDGMENT
1. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff seeking recovery of an amount of Rs 4,07,462/- alongwith pendente-lite and future interest and as per the plaint it has been pleaded inter-alia as follows:-
i. That the plaintiff is a Retired Government Servant/superannuated pensioner from the Government of National Capital Territorial of Delhi, Savitri Bai Phule ITI, Department of Training and Technical Education, Mori Gate, Delhi 110006 having PPO No. 669989400748 and the date of commencement of Superannuation Pension is 01.10.1994.
ii. That Defendant No. 1 is the employer of the plaintiff, who was employed at Savitri Bai Phule ITI, Department of Training and Technical Education, Mori Gate, Delhi 110006 from where the plaintiff ultimately superannuated w.e.f. 30.09.1994. Defendant No. 2 is Pay and Accounts Office No. X who is maintaining and responsible for accounting and payment of pension to the plaintiff under PPO No. 669989400748 and Defendant No. 3 is the pension disbursing bank, an agent of Defendant No 1 and 2 responsible for disbursing pension to the plaintiff under A/c No. 20055248224 on a monthly basis. iii. That the Plaintiff is a pensioner who was superannuated on closing of working hours on 30.09.1994 from Defendant No. 1, Government of National Capital Territorial of Delhi, Savitri Bai Phule ITI, Department of Training and Technical Education, Mori Gate, Delhi 110006. Thus, the date of commencement of Superannuation Pension is 01.10.1994. iv. That the plaintiff was getting regularly monthly pension as per orders CS No 160/2020 Shri M R Gadekar vs Government of NCT Delhi Page No 2/30 issued by Defendant No. 2, Pay and Accounts Office No. X, who is maintaining and responsible for accounting and payment of pension, to its disbursing bank i.e. Defendant No. 3, Bank of Maharashtra, Karol Bagh Branch, New Delhi.
v. That everything seemed to be fine till there was a sudden deduction of in monthly pension without any prior information to the plaintiff from the month of September 2016 but there was no explanation for it. vi. That inspite of all the efforts made by the plaintiff, it was not made clear why deductions were being made in the monthly pension. Various correspondences were exchanged which are detailed here, under date wise:
(a) Revision of pension was communicated via letter dated 01-03- 1999.
(b) Handwritten letter to Manager, Bank of Maharashtra, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, dated 30-09-2016 requesting that on completion of 80 years enhancement in pension be permissible as per rule of pension.
(c) Handwritten letter to Bank of Maharashtra, Pune dated 28-10- 2016 requesting that the full pension be credited.
(d) Handwritten letter to the head office of Bank of Maharashtra, Pune with CC to Manager, Bank of Maharashtra, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, dated 17-11-2016 requesting that arrears of pension be credited and provide details of changeover, if any.
(e) Handwritten letter to the head office of Bank of Maharashtra, Pune, dated 03-12-2016, requesting full pension be credited as per CS No 160/2020 Shri M R Gadekar vs Government of NCT Delhi Page No 3/30 the rules.
(f) Typed letter to Manager, Bank of Maharashtra, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, dated 29-12-2016 stating that the bank has drawn a recovery and till the clarification of the matter is ascertained and statement obtaining form the then-dealing staff and to provide all details in profoma recovery shall not be made.
(g) Letter to Pay and Accounts Office No. X, Delhi Sachivalay, IP Estate, New Delhi with CC to (1) Head office, SBF, ITI, Mori Gate, Delhi, (2) Manager, Bank of Maharashtra, Karol Bagh, New Delhi (EPPO order enclosed) dated 02-01-2017 requesting to supply copies of orders revising pension form time to time as per CPC's order.
(h) Hindi typed letter to Manager, Bank of Maharashtra, Karol Baugh, New Delhi dated 19/21-01-2017 requesting for full pension.
(i) Letter to Bank Lokapal enclosure letter dated 26-12-2016 dated 21-03-2017 requesting for details of pension revision and erring officials be held responsible.
(j) Representation Letter to The Principal, Savitri Bai Phule, ITI, Mori Gate, Delhi enclosure Government Order dated 13-2-2013 dated 21-03-2017 requesting to issue the revised pension order.
(k) Letter by Principal, SBF, ITI, Mori Gate, Delhi to the Pay and Accounts Officer No. X, Delhi Sachivalay, IP Estate, New Delhi dated 25-04-2017 forwarding representation letter dated 21.03.2017 of the plaintiff.
CS No 160/2020 Shri M R Gadekar vs Government of NCT Delhi Page No 4/30
(l) Letter from PAO No. X, Delhi Sachivalay, IP Estate, New Delhi to the Pay and Accounts Office, Central Pension, Pay and Accounting Office, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, Trikoot II Complex, Bhikaji Cama Place, RK Puram, New Delhi - 110066 dated 04-05-2017 stating modification in pension as per recommendations of the 6th pay commission.
(m) Notice u/s 80 CPC to (1) Manager, Bank of Maharashtra, Karol Baugh, New Delhi (2) Pay and Accounts Office No., Government of NCT Delhi, Delhi Sachivalay, IP Estate, New Delhi through Proper Channel dated 20-05-2017 calling upon to release amounts so deducted from monthly pension.
(n) Letter to Pay and Accounts Office, Central Pension Pay and Accounting Office, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, Trikoot II Complex, Bhikaji Cama Place, RK Puram, New Delhi 110066, dated 25-05-2017, stating that the order is to be forwarded to the bank asking them to give due arrears.
(o) Letter from the Principal, SBF, ITI, Mori Gate, Delhi to Pay and Accounts Office No. X, Government of NCT Delhi, Delhi Sachivalay, IP Estate, New Delhi, forwarding a copy of Notice u/s 80 dated 30-05-2017.
(p) Reply by the Office of the Banking Ombudsman, dated 09-06- 2017 stating that the bank has been asked to give their comments.
(q) Letter from Bank of Maharashtra, Karol Bagh, New Delhi dated 22-06-2017 stating, inter alia, that the recovery excess payment is Rs. 8,000/- without giving any full details of the total CS No 160/2020 Shri M R Gadekar vs Government of NCT Delhi Page No 5/30 recovery.
(r) Continuing Notice u/s 80 CPC to (1) Assistant General Manager, Bank of Maharashtra, Karol Baugh, New Delhi (2) Pay and Accounts Officer No. X, Government of NCT of Delhi, IP Estate, New Delhi dated 07-08-2017 calling upon the release of the amount of Rs. 1,52,673 along with interest @ 9% per annum and also to render true, complete, and correct accounts contributing to monthly pension.
(s) Reminder handwritten letter to Principal, SBF, ITI, Mori Gate, Delhi for forwarding notice u/s 80 CPC to PAO No. X dated 11-08- 2017.
(t) Submission of PPO No. 669989400748 to the Principal, SBF, ITI, Mori Gate, Delhi dated 11-08-2017.
(u) Ombudsman Closure letter of complaint No. 201617014020002 to Mr. M.R. Gadekar u/s 13(a) of Banking Ombudsman Scheme 2000 dated 17-08-2017.
(v)Order by Banking Ombudsman complaint no.
201617014020002 title MR Gadekar v/s Bank of Maharashtra, Karol Baugh, New Delhi Enclosure: letter dated 1-8-2017 to Ombudsman, 2nd Floor, RBI, Sansad Marg, New Delhi from Dy Zonal Manager, Delhi Zone, Bank of Maharashtra, Bhikaji Cama Place, Ncw Delhi dated 22-08-2017 stating that the complainant is free to approach any other forum.
(w) Reminder of notice u/s 80 CPC dated 7-8-2017 to Asst Manager, Bank of Maharashtra, Karol Baugh, New Delhi dated 19- CS No 160/2020 Shri M R Gadekar vs Government of NCT Delhi Page No 6/30 09-2017.
(x) Bank reply about reference of their earlier communication dated 22-06-2017 dated 22-03-2017.
(y) A copy of a letter dated 14-11-2017 from Bank of Maharashtra, Central Pensions Processing Cell, 1177 Budhwar Peth, Bajiroa Road, Pune 411002, enclosed with a bank statement of Mr. M.R. Gadekar, period May 2010 to November 2016, dated 14-11-2017, stating that excess payment of Rs. 5,03,862/- has been made, and therefore recovery @ Rs. 8,000/- per month has been started from January 2017 as the mistake was noticed.
(z) Letter from Mr. M.R. Gadekar to the Asst. Accounting Officer, Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure, General Pension Accounting Office, Trikut-II, Bhikaji Cama Plac, New Delhi-110016 cc to: (1) Pay and Accounts Officer PAO 10, Government of NCT, Second Level, "C" Wing, Delhi, Sachivalaya, IP Estate, New Delhi (2) The Asst. Manager, Bank of Maharashtra, Karol Bagh, New Delhi (3) The Manager, Bank of Maharashtra Central Pension Processing Cell, Pune with reference to his letter no. A/1157/MRG/CPPC/2017 dated 14-11-17, dated 01-01-2018 stating details of outstanding arrears, and requesting to deduct Rs. 5,000/- as facing financial hardship.
(aa) Letter from pensioner dated 1-1-2018 forwarded to Bank of Maharashtra (CPPC), Pune dated 01-02-2018.
(bb) Letter by pensioner to Bank of Maharashtra, Pune dated 26- 03-2018 stating that recovery be stopped and to reassess.
CS No 160/2020 Shri M R Gadekar vs Government of NCT Delhi Page No 7/30 (cc) RTI application dated 01-06-2018 seeking information about recovery of pension.
(dd) Letter from Bank of Maharashtra (CPPC), Pune enclosed with Paid Card Payable Statement, dated 08-06-2018.
(ee) Letter to Manager, Bank of Maharashtra, CPPC, Pune submitting Hon'ble Supreme Court Judgment in civil appeal no. 11227 of 2014 dated 28-07-2018.
(ff) Letter to Chairman, Bank of Maharashtra, Pune submitting Hon'ble Supreme Court Judgment dated 28-07-2018. (gg) Letter to Asst Manager, Bank of Maharashtra, Karol Bagh, Delhi, submitting Hon'ble Supreme Court Judgment dated 28-07- 2018.
(hh) Letter dated 19.8.2019 from Chief Manager, Bank of Maharashtra, Karol Bagh, Delhi responding to the complaint of the plaintiff.
vii. That the plaintiff has been agitating through various correspondences, inter alia, that the amount of monthly pension is being deducted in contravention of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter titled: State of Punjab and ors vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc., Civil Appeal No. 11527 of 2014 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 11684 of 2012). Relevant excerpt of the said judgment is given hereunder:
"12. It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship, which would govern employments on the issue of recovery, where payments have been unreservedly made by the employer, in excess of their entitlement. Be that as it may, based on the decisions referred to herein above, we may, as a CS No 160/2020 Shri M R Gadekar vs Government of NCT Delhi Page No 8/30 ready reference, summarize the following few situations, where recoveries by an employer would be impermissible in law:
(i) ..............
(ii) Recovery from retired employees, or employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery.
(iii) Recovery from employees, when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery is issued.
(iv) ...............
(v) ..............
vii. That the plaintiff has been running pillar to post since September 2016 and has been writing various communications to defendants ever since he has come to know about such arbitrary deduction without informing the plaintiff or seeking representation of the plaintiff. Not only this, the plaintiff has not been provided with any office order in this regard, which is mandatory prior to any deduction. This is deliberately done since the defendants are aware that, as per law laid down in State of Punjab and ors vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc. Civil Appeal No. 11527 of 2014 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 11684 of 2012 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India), there cannot be any deduction and no such orders can be there for deduction of pension, causing hardship to a pensioner.
viii. That the deductions are iniquitous and arbitrary and the plaintiff has no knowledge about the excess payment having been made to him since May 2010.
ix. That the plaintiff has not been provided with any specific official order effecting such deduction which has been done unilaterally in violation CS No 160/2020 Shri M R Gadekar vs Government of NCT Delhi Page No 9/30 of principle of natural justice. The plaintiff is suffering great hardship and accordingly in order to get some respite, a request was made to reduce the monthly deduction from Rs. 8,000/- to Rs. 5,000/-, which should not be construed as permission for deductions. x. That statutory notice under section 80 of the CPC dated 10.08.2019 was served upon all the defendants, which was in supersession of all the communications and notices, without prejudice to rights, that the plaintiff might have made in this regard, since those communications were based on less information.
xi. That the defendants failed to comply with the notice dt 10.08.2019 within statutory time and the plaintiff has filed the present suit with the following prayers :
(a) Pass a decree for recovery of Rs. 4,07,462/- along with interest @ 9% per annum calculated on the outstanding amount for the period ranging from 01.09.2016 to 01.02.2020, which comes to Rs. 62,720/- (Rupees Sixty Two Thousand Seven Hundred Twenty only) totaling upto Rs.
4,70,182/- (Rupees Four lac seventy thousand and one hundred Eighty Two only), pendente lite and future interest @ 9% per annum, in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants jointly and severally;
b) Award costs of the suit including litigation expenses in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants; and
c) Pass such other decrees or orders in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant as may be considered appropriate;
2. The defendant nos 1 & 2 did not file their written statement as they were proceeded Ex parte vide order dt 22.10.2021 and only defendant no 3 is the contesting party to the present suit.
CS No 160/2020 Shri M R Gadekar vs Government of NCT Delhi Page No 10/30 WRITTEN STATEMENT
3. The defendant no 3 in his written statement has challenged the suit of the plaintiff inter-alia on the following preliminary submissions:-
i. That the plaintiff has not come with clean hands and has suppressed true, relevant and material facts with malafide intention and ulterior motive to harass the defendant no 3. It is further stated that Defendant No. 3 is nowhere under any liability to the Plaintiff as Defendant No. 3 is acting only as an agent of Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 as the Plaintiff was employed with Defendant No. 1 and No. 2 and payment of pension is being made as per the direction of Defendant No. 1 and No. 2. It is further submitted that the Plaintiff was being paid excess payment of pension due to inadvertent clerical error and the plaintiff even though knowing very well that he is getting excess payment deliberately and deceptively kept silent and did not brought to the notice of the Defendant as the plaintiff wanted to embezzle the ill gotten funds. Whereas the answering defendant, who was acting as an agent of Defendant No. 2 in paying the pension when came to know about the excess payment due to inadvertence, contacted the plaintiff and discussed the excess payment made to the plaintiff. It was agreed/consented by the plaintiff that he was liable to repay the excess amount to the bank. However, the answering defendant instead of stopping full payment of pension started deducting the excess pension in installment in order to avoid inconvenience to the plaintiff and the plaintiff was duly informed about the deduction of the excess payment. The answering defendant has in excess paid the amount of pension during the period from October 2008 to December 2016. The total excess payment was made for an amount of Rs. 5,03,863/-. Hence, to avoid CS No 160/2020 Shri M R Gadekar vs Government of NCT Delhi Page No 11/30 inconvenience to the plaintiff, the deduction was made in installment of Rs. 8,000/- per month. That is the reason the plaintiff has not approached the appropriate forum against the said deduction and came to this court with a suit for recovery after several years from the start of the deduction with the malafide intention of pressurizing and extracting illegal money from the answering defendant. It is further stated that the present suit is based on an absolutely false, frivolous, baseless, misconceived, and vexatious allegations and, therefore, the same is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs. It is further stated that no cause of action has arisen for the Plaintiff to file the present suit, as no amount is claimed by the Plaintiff is due and payable by the defendant no 3.
ii. On Merits, it is submitted that the Plaintiff was being paid excess pension payment due to clerical error and the plaintiff, even though knowing very well that he is receiving excess payment, deliberately and deceptively kept silent and did not bring to the notice of the Defendant as the plaintiff wanted to embezzle the ill-gotten funds. Whereas the answering defendant, who was acting as an agent of the defendant no. 2, in paying the pension came to know of the excess payment due to inadvertence, the answering defendant, instead of stopping full pension payment, started deducting the excess pension in installment in order to avoid inconvenience to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff was duly informed about the deduction of excess payment The answering defendant has overpaid the amount of pension during the period October 2008 to December 2016. The total excess payment was made for an amount of Rs. 5,03,863/- . Hence, to avoid inconvenience to the plaintiff, the deduction was made in installment of Rs. 8,000/- per month.
CS No 160/2020 Shri M R Gadekar vs Government of NCT Delhi Page No 12/30 REPLICATION
4. The plaintiff filed his replication to the written statement as filed by defendant no 3 by denying each and every allegation raised by the defendant no 3.
ISSUES
5. Vide order dated 16.03.2022, the following issues were framed:-
1. Whether suit filed by plaintiff is not maintainable, as it does not disclose any cause of action'? OPD (Defendant No. 3)
2. Whether suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by limitation?
OPD (Defendant No. 3)
3. Whether plaintiff is entitled for recovery as prayed for? OPP
4. Whether plaintiff is entitled for any interest? If so, at what rate, upon which amount and for which period? OPP
5. Any other Relief.
PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE
6. In order to prove his case, the plaintiff examined 2 witnesses. Sh M R Gadekar examined himself and entered into the witness box as PW-1 who tendered his affidavit as Ex. PW1/A reiterating the contents of the plaint and relied upon the following documents:-
1) Ex PW 1/A (OSR) is the copy of revision of pension communicated vide letter dt 01.03.1999.
CS No 160/2020 Shri M R Gadekar vs Government of NCT Delhi Page No 13/30
2) Ex PW 1/B (OSR) is the copy of hand written letter by the plaintiff to D- 3 dt 30.09.2016.
3) Ex PW 1/C (OSR) is the copy of hand written letter dt 28.10.2016.
4) Ex PW 1/D (OSR) is the copy of hand written letter by the plaintiff to D- 3 dt 17.11.2016.
5) Ex PW 1/E (OSR) is the copy of hand written letter by the plaintiff to D- 3 dt 03.12.2016.
6) Ex PW 1/F (OSR) is the copy of letter sent by the plaintiff to D-3 dt 29.12.2016.
7) Ex PW 1/G (colly page no 8 to 9 ) (OSR) is the copy of letters dt 02.01.2017 sent by the plaintiff to the D-2 with copy to D-3.
8) Ex PW 1/H (colly page no 10 to 11) (OSR) is the copy of the letters dt 19/21-01-2017 by the plaintiff to D-3.
9) Ex PW 1/I (colly page no 12 to 16) (OSR) is the copy of letter sent by the plaintiff to the Bank Lokpal alongwith letters dt 26.12.2016 & dt 21.03.2017.
10) Ex PW 1/J (OSR) is the copy of representation to the Principal, Savitri Bai Phule, ITI, Mori Gate, Delhi dt 13.02.2013.
11)Ex PW 1/K (OSR) is the copy of letter dt 25.04.2017 sent by D-1 to D-2.
12) Ex PW 1/L (OSR pg 23) is the copy of internal letter dt 04.05.2017 issued by D-2.
13) Ex PW 1/M (OSR pg 24 to 26) is the copy of the notice u/s 80 CPC dt 20.05.2017 issued by the plaintiff to D-2 & D-3.
14) Ex PW 1/N (colly pg 27) (OSR) is the copy of letter dt 25.05.2017 sent by plaintiff to D-2.
CS No 160/2020 Shri M R Gadekar vs Government of NCT Delhi Page No 14/30
15) Ex PW 1/O (OSR pg 29) is the copy of letter dt 30.05.2017 sent by D-1 to D-2.
16) Ex PW 1/P (OSR pg 32) is the copy of letter issued from the office of Banking Ombudsman dt 09.06.2017 to the plaintiff.
17) Ex PW 1/Q (OSR pg 34) is the copy of letter dt 22.06.2017 issued by D-3 to plaintiff.
18) Ex PW 1/R (OSR pg 38 to 40)is the copy of reply dt 07.08.2017 sent by the plaintiff to D-1 & D-2.
19) Ex PW 1/S (OSR pg 41) is the copy of the cover letter dt 11.08.2017 written by the plaintiff to D-1.
20) Ex PW 1/T (Colly) (OSR pg 42 to 44) is the copy of the performa for revision of family pension dt 18.08.2017 submitted by the plaintiff with D-1.
21) Ex PW 1/U (Colly) (OSR pg 45 to 46) is the copy of the letter dt 17.08.2017 issued by Banking Ombudsman to the plaintiff informing about the order dt 01.08.2017 alongwith the copy of order dt 01.08.2017.
22) Ex PW 1/V (Colly) (OSR pg 47 to 49) is the copy of the covering letter dt 22.08.2017 alongwith the copy of the detailed order dt 22.08.2017 issued by Banking Ombudsman to the plaintiff.
23) Ex PW 1/W (Colly) (OSR pg 50 to 52) is the copy of reminder notice dt 07.08.2017 sent by the plaintiff to the D-2 & D-3.
24) Ex PW 1/X (OSR) is the copy of letter dt 22.09.2017 sent by D-3 to plaintiff.
25) Ex PW 1/Y (Colly) (OSR pg 56 to 76) is the copy of letter dt 14.11.2017 issued by D-3 to Ministry of finance with copy to D-2 alongwith statement of pension account.
CS No 160/2020 Shri M R Gadekar vs Government of NCT Delhi Page No 15/30
26) Ex PW 1/Z (OSR pg 79-82) is the copy of letter dt 01.01.2018 sent by the plaintiff to Ministry of Finance alongwith hand written calculation sheet.
27) Ex PW 1/AA (OSR pg 83) is the copy of the forwarding letter dt Nil of February-2018 issued by Ministry of Finance to D-3 forwarding the letter dt 01.01.2018 i.e. Ex PW 1/Z.
28) Ex PW 1/BB (OSR pg 84-85 ) is the copy of letter dt 26.03.2018 sent by the plaintiff to D-3.
29)Ex PW 1/CC is the copy of hand written RTI application dt 01.06.2018 sent by the plaintiff to D-3.
30) Ex PW 1/DD (Colly) (OSR pg 89 to 127) is the copy of the letter dt 08.06.2018 issued by D-3 to the plaintiff alonwith statement of pension account.
31)Ex PW 1/EE (OSR pg 129-131) is the copy of letter dt 28.07.2018 sent by the plaintiff to the Manager of D-3.
32)Ex PW 1/FF (OSR pg 132-135) is the copy of letter dt 28.07.2018 sent by the plaintiff to the Chairman of D-3.
33)Ex PW 1/GG (OSR pg 136-138) is the copy of letter dt 28.07.2018 sent by the plaintiff to the Asst Manager of D-3.
34)Ex PW 1/HH (Colly) (OSR pg 139-140) is the copy of letter dt 19.08.2019 issued by D-3 to plaintiff alongwith letter dt 15.05.2019.
35)Ex PW 1/II (OSR pg 141-146) is the copy of notice u/s 80 CPC dt 10.08.2019 issued by the plaintiff to the defendants.
36) Ex PW 1/JJ are the original postal receipts.
37) Ex PW 1/KK (OSR) is the copy of internal letter dt 22.02.2019 issued by D-2.
CS No 160/2020 Shri M R Gadekar vs Government of NCT Delhi Page No 16/30
38) Ex PW 1/LL is the reply dt 09.07.2018 issued by D-3 to the RTI dt 01.06.2018 filed by the plaintiff.
7. PW-1 was duly cross-examined at length by the Ld counsel for the defendant no 3.
8. PW-2/Sh. Darshan Singh, Manager Bank of Maharashtra, Karol Bagh, Delhi was a summoned witness who brought the bank statement duly supported by the certificate u/s 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act ans also certified u/s 2A Books of Bankers Act which is Ex PW 2/A and thereafter evidence of the plaintiff was closed vide order dated 17.11.2023.
9. In order to prove its case, defendant no 3 examined only one witness i.e. Sh Vikas Bagri as DW-1 who relied upon the following documents:-
1) Ex. DW 1/1 is the Board resolution. (objection to the mode of proof)
2) Ex DW 1/2 is the letter dt 15.05.2019 which is already exhibited as PW1/D3-1.
3) Ex DW 1/3 is the Board resolution. (objection to the mode of proof)
10. The witness of the defendant no 3 was duly cross-examined and the evidence of the defendant was closed on 09.01.2025. During cross examination DW-1 has also placed reliance upon DW1/X1.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF.
11. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has contended that defendant no 3 has acted in a high headed manner who contrary to the ratio of the judgment as rendered in the matter of State of Punjab and Ors Vs Rafiq Masih (whitewasher) has CS No 160/2020 Shri M R Gadekar vs Government of NCT Delhi Page No 17/30 proceeded to recover an amount of Rs. 5,03,863/- from the pension amount payable to the plaintiff. It is further submitted that the ratio of the judgment rendered in the matter of State of Punjab and Ors Vs Rafiq Masih (whitewasher) is squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case since the plaintiff falls under the category of a retired employee and excess payments have been made for a period more than 5 years i.e. from the year 2008 to 2016. It is further submitted that no show cause notice was ever issued to the plaintiff prior to effecting unilateral recovery. It is further submitted that unilateral recovery was effected despite the plaintiff informing defendant no 3 that he is suffering extreme financial hardship due to the unilateral action of defendant no 3.
12. Per Contra, it is submitted by Ld Counsel for defendant no 3 that since admittedly excess payments towards the pension amount have been made to the plaintiff the same are liable to be recovered. It is further submitted that the plaintiff himself has authorized the deduction an amount of Rs 5,000/- instead of an amount of Rs 8,000/- being deducted from the pension amount payable to the plaintiff. It is further submitted that the plaintiff due to a mistake committed by defendant no 3 cannot be permitted to unduly enrich himself at the cost of defendant no 3 and the excess amount paid to the plaintiff is thus liable to be recovered. It is further submitted that there exist no cause of action in favour of the plaintiff since the entire excess amount paid to the plaintiff stands recovered by defendant no 3.
ARGUMENTS HEARD. CONSIDERED.
13. My issue wise findings are as under:
CS No 160/2020 Shri M R Gadekar vs Government of NCT Delhi Page No 18/30 ISSUE no 1 "Whether suit filed by plaintiff is not maintainable, as it does not disclose any 'cause of action'? OPD (Defendant No. 3)
14. The onus to prove this issue is upon defendant no 3. As per the plaintiff, the plaintiff was entitled to superannuation pension w.e.f. 01.10.1994. The plaintiff was getting regular pension as per the order issued by defendant no 2 whose monthly pension was deducted w.e.f. the month of September 2016 by defendant no 3 and that too without any prior information. The plaintiff thereafter issued various communications to defendant no 3 and also to defendant no 2. The plaintiff also issued representation dt 21.03.2017 to defendant no 1. The plaintiff after issuing statutory notice u/s 80 CPC sought release of the deducted monthly pension amount has filed the present suit seeking recovery of an amount of Rs 4,07,462/- i.e. the deducted amount from with monthly pendency w.e.f. 01.09.2016 to 01.02.2020 together-with pendente-lite and future interest @ 9% per annum. As per the plaintiff the deduction has been carried out without informing the plaintiff, unilaterally which are iniquitous and therefore arbitrary and cannot be deducted in terms of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of State of Punjab and Ors vs Rafiq Masih (whitewasher) Civil Appeal No 11527 of 2014.
15. The defendant no 1 & 2 were proceeded Ex parte vide order dt 22.10.2021 however in the written statement filed by defendant no 3 it has been stated that there is no cause of action in favour of the plaintiff and against defendant no 3 since no amount is due and payable by defendant no 3 to the plaintiff. The plaint discloses a well define cause of action which as per the CS No 160/2020 Shri M R Gadekar vs Government of NCT Delhi Page No 19/30 plaintiff has arisen on account of the illegal deduction having been carried out by defendant no 3. Defendant no 3 who has carried out deduction from the monthly pension of the plaintiff cannot be permitted to contend that simply because as per defendant no 3 it is not liable to make the payment of the deducted amount to the plaintiff hence there is no cause of action in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants. Defendant no 3 who has effected unilateral recoveries/deductions cannot be permitted to say that there exists no cause of action against the said defendant. Hence, the present issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against defendant no 3.
16. ISSUE No 2 Whether suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by limitation? OPD (Defendant No. 3)
17. The onus to prove this issue is upon defendant no 3. As per the admitted case of the parties deductions are being effected from the monthly pension of the plaintiff w.e.f. 01.09.2016. The present suit has been filed on 11.02.2020. The defendant has not been able to substantiate how the present suit is barred by the period of limitation since defendant no 3 has been effecting the deductions from the monthly pension payable to the plaintiff w.e.f. 01.09.2016. In terms of Article 24 of the Limitation Act a period of limitation of 3 years has been prescribed for money payable by the defendant to the plaintiff for money received by the defendant for the plaintiffs use. In any case the plaintiff has the right to recover the deducted amount from his pension for the period 3 years prior to filing of the present suit. Hence, the present issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against defendant no 3.
CS No 160/2020 Shri M R Gadekar vs Government of NCT Delhi Page No 20/30
18. ISSUE No 3 & 4.
Whether plaintiff is entitled for recovery as prayed for? OPP Whether plaintiff is entitled for any interest? If so, at what rate, upon which amount and for which period? OPP
19. The onus to prove these issues are upon the plaintiff. As per the case set up by the plaintiff, the plaintiff is a retired Govt servant who superannuated w.e.f. 30.09.1994. Right from the date of his superannuation, the plaintiff was getting regular monthly pension as per the orders of defendant no 2 who are responsible for maintaining, accounting and payment of pension to its disbursing bank i.e. defendant no 3. As per the plaintiff, defendant no 3 bank started deducting his monthly pension without any prior information w.e.f. September 2016. Aggrieved by unilateral of defendant no 3 bank, the plaintiff issued PW 1/C dt 28.10.2016 seeking reasons for deduction of pension for the month of September and October 2016. Ex PW-1/C was followed by Ex PW-1/ D (17.11.2016), EX PW-1/ D followed by Ex PW- 1/E (03.12.2016).
20. Vide EX PW-1/ F dt 29.12.2016, the plaintiff raised the protest with respect to the recovery of an amount of Rs 5,03,682/- and sought clarification as to how his pension was enhanced to Rs 10,641/- for the past 7 years who also requested not to carry out any recovery till clarifications are made to be followed with Ex PW-1/G dt 02.01.2017 issued to defendant no 2.
21. The plaintiff vide Ex PW-1/H raised the protest with defendant no 3 to the effect that he has not been issued any show cause notice and also that responsibility of the bank be fixed. The plaintiff also made a request vide Ex PW-1/I dt 21.03.2017 to banking lokpal complaining about the deduction of CS No 160/2020 Shri M R Gadekar vs Government of NCT Delhi Page No 21/30 an amount of Rs 8,000/- from his monthly pension who sought restoration of his monthly pension which the plaintiff was receiving prior to the commencement of deductions. A representation Ex PW-1/K dt 25.04.2017 was also received in the office of defendant no 2.
22. Vide Ex PW-1/L dt 04.05.2017 the plaintiff was furnished the copy of internal letter dt 04.05.2017 issued by Defendant no 2 thereby revising the pension as pre 2006 pensioners.
23. Vide Ex PW-1/M dt 20.05.2017 the plaintiff issued notice u/s 80 to defendant no 1 & 2 who also made a complaint vide Ex PW-1/P dt 09.06.2017 to banking on Ombudsman.
24. Vide Ex PW-1/Q dt 22.06.2017 clarifications were issued by the branch office of defendant no 3 who stated that an amount of Rs 8,000/- is being deducted since excess pension has been paid to the plaintiff.
25. The plaintiff Ex PW-1/R dt 07.08.2017 issued a corrigendum to his notice issued u/s 80 thereby seeking details of the excess payment allegedly made to the plaintiff and the amount sought to be recovered.
26. Vide Ex PW-1/U dt 07.08.2017 the banking ombudsman closed the complaint stating that there is no deficiency on the part of the bank giving reasons vide Ex PW-1/V dt 12.08.2017. Thereafter the plaintiff issued a reminder dt 07.08.2017 to the defendants ( Ex PW-1/W dt 19.09.2017).
27. The defendant no 2 vide Ex PW-1/Y had forwarded a letter to the plaintiff addressed by Asst Accounts Officer, Govt of India stating that defendant no 3 bank in the month of May 2010 had wrongfully computed the pension of the plaintiff instead of an amount of Rs 7,094 to Rs 10,641/-. It was further stated that the bank had noticed the said discrepancy/mistake in the month of CS No 160/2020 Shri M R Gadekar vs Government of NCT Delhi Page No 22/30 January 2017 and had thereafter started deducting Rs 8,000/- per month from the pension payable to the plaintiff w.e.f. January 2017. Thereafter the plaintiff preferred a representation to the Govt of India and also preferred RTI application i.e. Ex PW-1/AA & Ex PW-1/BB with the office of defendant no 3 who issued fresh notice dt 10.08.2019 u/s 80 CPC upon the defendants Ex PW-1/II.
28. Thus from the aforesaid proved documents, the plaintiff has been raising his protests against the unilateral action of defendant no 3 in effecting the deductions/recoveries from the monthly pension payable to the plaintiff and has been running from pillar to post since September 2016 but to no effect.
29. PW-1 in his cross examination has admitted that he was getting enhanced pension post October 2008 and also that he had requested for deducting an amount of Rs 5,000/- from his pension account instead of an amount of Rs 8,000/- who however explained that such a request was made since an amount of Rs 8,000/- was being deducted by defendant no 3 without any prior notice. PW-1 had denied to the suggestion made by Ld counsel for the defendant no 3 to the effect that any information with respect to deduction of money from his pension account was ever given to him. PW-1 in his cross examination however has admitted that an amount of Rs 8,000/- was being deducted from his pension account by defendant no 3 w.e.f. September 2016. Thus from the aforesaid testimony of PW-1 nothing substantial could be abstracted who proved the fact that he was getting enhanced pension w.e.f. October 2008 and unilateral deductions were being effected by defendant no 3 without any prior information and on his request the said amount was reduced to Rs 5,000/- in terms of letters dt 01.01.2018 wherein also he CS No 160/2020 Shri M R Gadekar vs Government of NCT Delhi Page No 23/30 pleaded financial hardship and arbitrary deduction to the tune of Rs 8,000/- being carried out from his pension and that too without any fault on his part w.e.f. September 2016.
30. Defendant no 1 & 2 were proceeded ex parte vide order dt 22.10.2021.
However defendant no 3 has examined DW-1 and has placed reliance upon DW1/ 2 i.e. letter dt 15.05.2019 vide which it was informed to the plaintiff that excess payment w.e.f. October 2008 to December 2016 for a sum of Rs 5,03,862/- has been made to the plaintiff as noticed by the bank in January 2017 and thereafter the bank started deduction of an amount of Rs 8,000/- per month from the pension amount of the plaintiff and which deductions stands reduced to Rs 5,000/-. DW-1 admitted in his cross examination that the excess pensionary benefits pertains to the period 2008 to December 2016 i.e. an amount of Rs 5,03,863/-. It has further been admitted that the entire payment stands recovered from the plaintiff w.e.f. January 2016 to July 2022. It has further been admitted that no recovery sheet has been prepared showing the total amount of recovery. DW-1 although placed on record DW1/X1 stating that the excess payment of pensionary benefits was apprised by defendant no 2 to the defendant no 3 through official mail. However perusal of DW 1/X1 does not reflect that infact defendant no 3 was apprised by defendant no 2 about the excess payment which is simply a statement.
31. The defendant no 3 has not been able to demonstrate that prior to effecting recoveries from the monthly pension payable to the plaintiff, any show cause notice has been issued to the plaintiff by either of the defendants. Defendant no 3 has also admitted that excess amount has been paid to the plaintiff for a period more than 5 years w.e.f. October 2008 to December 2016 and that too CS No 160/2020 Shri M R Gadekar vs Government of NCT Delhi Page No 24/30 without any misrepresentation or fraud having been plead by the plaintiff. From the aforesaid it is thus clear that there has been a gross violation of the principles of natural justice of the plaintiff who at no point of time was put to notice that excess amount has been paid to the plaintiff and that the same is liable to be recovered. Defendant no 3 by becoming a judge in its own cause has unilaterally proceeded to recover the amount of Rs 5,03,863/- from the monthly pension of the plaintiff despite the plaintiff consistently bringing to the notice of defendant no 3 that inequitable and extreme hardship is being suffered by the plaintiff. Defendant no 3 has not been able to also demonstrate that any show cause notice had been issued by defendant no 1 & 2 to the plaintiff or that the recoveries being effected by it were consequent upon the directions issued by defendant no 1 & 2.
32. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of State of Punjab and Ors Vs Rafiq Masih (whitewasher) 2014 (13) SCR 1343 examined the validity of an order passed by the state to recover the monetary gains wrongly extended to the beneficiary employees in excess of their entitlement without any fault or misrepresentation at the behest of the recipient. The Hon'ble Apex Court considered the situations of hardship caused to an employee if recovery is directed to reimburse the employer and disallowed the same, exempting the beneficiary employees from such recovery and it was thus held :
"Para 8: "As between the two parties, if a determination is rendered in favour of a party, which is the weaker of the two, without any serious detriment to the other (which is truly a welfare state) the issue resolved would be in consonance with the concept of justice, which is assured to the citizens of India, even in the preamble of the Constitution of India. The right to recovery being pursued by the employer, will have to be compared, with the effect of the recovery on the concerned employee. If the effect of the recovery from the concerned employee would be, more unfair, more CS No 160/2020 Shri M R Gadekar vs Government of NCT Delhi Page No 25/30 wrongful, more improper, and more unwarranted than the corresponding right of the employer to recover the amount, then it would be iniquitous and arbitrary to effect the recovery. In such a situation, the employee's right would outbalance, and therefore eclipse, the right of the employer to recover."
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX "Para 12. It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship, which would govern employments on the issue of recovery, where payments have been unreservedly made by the employer, in excess of their entitlement. Be that as it may, based on the decisions referred to herein above, we may, as a ready reference, summarize the following few situations, where recoveries by an employer would be impermissible in law:
(i) Recovery from employees belonging to Class-III and Class IV service (or Group 'C' and Group 'D' Service).
(ii) Recovery from retired employees, or employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery.
(iii) Recovery from 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 cases, 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. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case title Thomas Daniel Vs State of Karela & Ors 2022 SCC online SC 536 has reiterated the law laid down in the case of State of Punjab and Ors Vs Rafiq Masih (whitewasher) (Supra).
34. The ratio of the judgment passed in the matter of State of Punjab and Ors Vs Rafiq Masih (whitewasher) 2014 (13) SCR 1343 as reaffirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Thomas Daniel Vs State of Kerala & CS No 160/2020 Shri M R Gadekar vs Government of NCT Delhi Page No 26/30 Ors 2022 SCC online SC 536 is squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
35. In the present case admittedly the plaintiff is not an employee belonging to Class III and Class IV service (or group C & group D service). However the plaintiff squarely falls within the second category as referred to by the Hon'ble Apex Court in clause (ii) of Para 12 of the judgment passed in the matter of State of Punjab and Ors Vs Rafiq Masih (whitewasher) (Supra) since the plaintiff retired on superannuation on 30.09.1994 and was receiving superannuation pension w.e.f. 01.10.1994. The present matter is also covered by clause (iii) of Para 12 of the judgment passed in the matter of State of Punjab and Ors Vs Rafiq Masih (whitewasher) (Supra) since the recovery which have been effected has been made for the payment for a period in excess of 5 years. The present matter is also covered by Clause (v) of Para 12 of the judgment passed in the matter of State of Punjab and Ors Vs Rafiq Masih (whitewasher) (Supra) since as per the various communications issued by the plaintiff, the defendants were informed that the plaintiff is suffering extreme hardship who accordingly having left with no other alternative had to make a request to defendant no 3 vide letter dt 01.01.2018 (Ex PW 1/Z ) to reduce the ongoing deductions @ Rs 8,000/- to Rs 5,000/-. The aforesaid act and request made by the plaintiff is a proof positive of the fact that the plaintiff was suffering extreme financial hardship.
36. By the action of the plaintiff, it is the established case of the plaintiff that the recovery is iniquitous, harsh and arbitrary to such an extent that the same outweighs the equitable balance of the employee's right to recover. It is further the case of the plaintiff and as admitted by the defendant no 3 that the CS No 160/2020 Shri M R Gadekar vs Government of NCT Delhi Page No 27/30 excess payments has been made due to the mistake on the part of defendant no 3 who wrongfully calculated the superannuation pension payable to the plaintiff and thus cannot be attributed to any fraud having been played by the Plaintiff.
37. Thus from the aforesaid and in view of the authoritative pronouncement made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of State of Punjab and Ors Vs Rafiq Masih (whitewasher) (Supra), the action of defendant no 3 in effecting the recoveries after an expiry of an period of 8 years is unsustainable in law, the plaintiff being a retired employee.
38. Beside the aforesaid, defendant no 1 & 2 have been proceeded ex parte who have not even filed the written statement. Defendant no 3 who has contested the present matter has failed to lead any evidence to the effect that prior to effecting recovery from the pension amount payable to the plaintiff, any notice/explanation was issued/sought from the plaintiff. Defendant no 3 further has not placed on record any document vide which the factum of wrong payment of the pension amount was brought to the notice of defendant no 1 & 2 by defendant no 3 nor it has placed on record any decision of defendant no 1 & 2 to effect recoveries from the pension amount payable to the plaintiff. Defendant no 3 has further not placed on record any document to show that the amount recovered by defendant no 3 has been credited to defendants no 1 & 2. Under the circumstances, defendant no 3 has thus effected unilateral recoveries from the pension amount of the plaintiff in gross violation of the principles of natural justice by becoming a judge in their own cause. As per the defendants they have effected recovery for an amount of Rs 5,03,862/- in the following manner:
CS No 160/2020 Shri M R Gadekar vs Government of NCT Delhi Page No 28/30
a) Rs 1,20,306 w.e.f January 2016 to December 2016.
b) Rs 1,17,172/- w.e.f January 2017 to February 2018 @ Rs 8,000/- + Rs 5, 172/-.
c) Rs 69,000/- w.e.f. March 2018 to February 2019 @ Rs 8,000 x 3 + Rs 5,000/- x 9.
d) Rs 1,15,000/- w.e.f. March 2019 to January 2021 (Rs 5,000/- x 16)
e) Rs 2,384/- w.e.f July 2022.
39. Thus from the aforesaid calculations it is clear that recoveries have been effected w.e.f. January 2016 till July 2022. Keeping in view the fact that the suit has been filed on 12.02.2020 only recoveries effected within the period of limitation are liable to be recovered i.e. from 11.02.2017. For the period commencing w.e.f. January 2016 till 11.02.2017 the defendants have recovered an amount of Rs 1,20,306/- from CPC arrears + an amount of Rs 8,000/- from the pension, totaling to Rs 1,28,306/-. The plaintiff is thus entitled to the balance amount i.e. Rs 3,75,556/- i.e. the balance amount deducted which is within the period of limitation. Accordingly, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the principal amount of Rs 3,75,556/- (Rs 5,03,862 - Rs 1,28,306). Keeping in view the fact that unilateral recoveries have been effected from the pension account of the plaintiff, the plaintiff is entitled to recover interest on the principal amount from the date from which it was deducted @ 9% per annum. Hence, both these issues are decided in favour of the plaintiff and against defendant no 3.
RELIEF
40. In view of the above, the suit filed by the plaintiff is decreed against the defendants and the plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of an amount of Rs CS No 160/2020 Shri M R Gadekar vs Government of NCT Delhi Page No 29/30 3,75,556/- i.e. the amount deducted by defendant no 3 w.e.f 10.02.2017 i.e three years prior to the filing of the suit together-with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of their respective recoveries till its realization.
41. Cost of the suit is also awarded.
42. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
43. File be consigned to record room, after necessary legal formalities.
Digitally
signed by
SACHIN SACHIN SOOD
Announced in the Open Court (SACHIN SOOD)
SOOD
Date:
2025.09.24
18:30:19
+0530
on 24th September, 2025. DJ-01/ Central District Tis Hazari Court/Delhi.
CS No 160/2020 Shri M R Gadekar vs Government of NCT Delhi Page No 30/30