Madras High Court
Senior Manager (Services), Indian Bank vs Hemavathy Rajan, Union Of India (Uoi) ... on 12 April, 2005
Author: T.V. Masilamani
Bench: T.V. Masilamani
ORDER R. Balasubramanian, J.
1. The writ petitioner is challenging the order dated 25.10.1999 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, in O.A.No.936/1998. Heard the learned counsel on either side. There is no dispute on the following facts:
"The first respondent's husband was working in Government of India; he died on 20.10.1982; but for his untimely death, he would have been in service till 20.10.1989; taking that into account, the Pension Sanctioning Authority, sanctioned a sum of Rs.1,309/- as pension to the widow of the Government servant namely, the first respondent, till 20.10.1989 and thereafter at the rate of Rs.655/- per month till her life time. However, even after 20.10.1989, the writ petitioner (Pension Disbursing Authority) continued to credit the Savings Bank Account of the first respondent with the same sum of Rs.1,309/- per month, which credit went on till January 1998. On 24.01.1998, the writ petitioner, after adjusting a sum of Rs.26,900/-, available to the credit of the first respondent in her bank account, made a demand for the balance amount. The excess payment made between October 1989 till January 1998 comes to Rs.1,36,710/-. The first respondent replied on 25.02.1998 refusing to give her consent."
Since the sum of Rs.26,900/- available to her credit was already adjusted, the first respondent went before the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.936/1998 for a direction to the Pension Disbursing Authority (writ petitioner) to waive the recovery of excess payments alleged to have been made and for a further direction to the bank to refund all the amounts that had been recovered already. The Tribunal found that excess payment had been made. However it came to grant the relief as prayed for on the ground that the Pension Disbursing Authority (writ petitioner) was sleeping over the matter for nine years from the time excess payment came to be made; there is no fault at all on the part of the widow, which led the Pension Disbursing Authority to make excess payment and therefore for the laches committed by the bank (Pension Disbursing Authority), the relief as prayed for should be granted. It is this order, which is in challenge before this court by the Pension Disbursing Authority (bank).
2. There are binding Regulations given by the Reserve Bank of India. The first Regulation is dated 18.04.1991. Under that Regulation, once an excess payment made to a pensioner comes to the notice of the paying branch, it is given the right to adjust the same against the amount standing to the credit of the pensioner's account to the extent possible and then call upon the pensioner to refund the shortfall. In this case, basing on this Regulation only, the Pension Disbursing Authority had adjusted the sum of Rs.26,900/- already available to the credit of the pensioner. The Regulation do not contemplate a prior notice to the pensioner before adjustment. When payment in excess of entitlement is not in dispute, no prejudice is caused to the pensioner for want of notice prior to adjustment and therefore principles of fair play is not violated. Under these circumstances, we do not find any fault with the Pension Disbursing Authority adjusting this amount of Rs.26,900/- lying to the credit of the pensioner's account being part of the excess payment made. The question therefore is, whether the delay on the part of the Pension Disbursing Authority in discovering the mistake and then taking action would come in the way of the bank from recovering the amount due? Learned counsel appearing for the pensioner relies upon a judgment of this court in the case (K. Raman and Ors. v. The State of Tamil Nadu). In that case, recovery was made without giving an opportunity to the person to be affected. In that context, this court held that if at all recovery can be made, it can be made only after providing an opportunity to the aggrieved party. The other judgment, again a Single Bench judgment of this court, relied upon by the learned counsel for the pensioner is one reported in 2004 Writ Law Reporter Pg.546 (T. Bhagyaraj v. The Director of Elementary Education and Ors.). In that case also, the court found, on facts, that during the relevant period the writ petitioner therein had actually worked and therefore there was no propriety to recover the salary as if the petitioner had not actually worked. That is not the factual position here. This is a case where pension amount had been paid in excess. The reliance placed by the Central Administrative Tribunal on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case reported in 1994 Supp (3) SCC Pg.502 (Union of India v. K.B. Khare and Ors.), in our considered opinion, does not get attracted to the case on hand. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in that case did not lay down any law that wherever excess payment is made, it shall not be recovered. The Supreme Court in that judgment, after deciding the main issue, had expressed it's opinion that if any excess pension had been made to the first respondent therein, then what he is legitimately entitled to, that may not be recovered. In other words, the issue as to whether excess payment already made to the pensioner to be recovered or not was not the issue in that case.
3. Having regard to the above discussion, we find that the petitioner bank has definitely made out a case for recovering the excess payment made and when admittedly there is no dispute on that aspect, the delay stated to have been committed by the bank in discovering the mistake, in our opinion, would not come in the way of the bank from recovering the excess payment made. Consequently, the order challenged in the writ petition is set aside and the writ petition stands allowed as prayed for. W.M.P.No.27755/1999 is closed.