New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has barred the State Bank of India (SBI) from recovering alleged excess pension payments from a widow drawing family pension, holding that the overpayment arose entirely due to errors in pension processing and not because of any misrepresentation or concealment on her part.
A single-judge bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula, allowing the plea filed by a woman identified as Indra, directed the SBI to refund the amounts already deducted from her family pension along with 6 per cent annual interest, while also restraining the bank from making any further recoveries.
The petitioner’s husband, a government employee working as a Upper Division Clerk in the Election Department under the South-West Delhi SDM, had died in service in June 2003.
Following his death, a family pension was sanctioned in favour of the petitioner through a pension payment order issued by the Delhi government and disbursed through SBI’s Kapashera branch. The widow later noticed a sharp reduction in her monthly pension and was informed that an excess pension amounting to over Rs 2.51 lakh had allegedly been paid due to a “wrong ENHANCE DATE” in the pension records.
The SBI subsequently recalculated the alleged excess amount at Rs 3.60 lakh and began monthly deductions from her pension.
The petitioner challenged the recovery, contending that she had neither furnished false information nor played any role in the alleged overpayment and that the deductions had been initiated unilaterally without prior notice.
In its judgment, the Delhi High Court observed that the bank’s own records showed the excess payment was caused due to errors in pension processing and not because of any fraud or misrepresentation by the petitioner.
“There is nothing on record to suggest that the petitioner knew, or ought reasonably to have known, that she was receiving amounts beyond her lawful entitlement,” Justice Narula observed.
The judge further said that the petitioner, being a family pensioner, had “no role in configuring the software or dates” and could not reasonably be expected to detect errors in the bank’s internal calculations.
Referring to Supreme Court precedents on recovery of excess payments from pensioners, the Delhi High Court held that the present case fell within the “protective zone” recognised by the apex court in cases where recovery would cause undue hardship to retired employees or pensioners.
Justice Narula also faulted the SBI for initiating recovery without first furnishing the details of the alleged overpayment or the proposed mode of recovery to the petitioner.
“Recovery from pension without prior communication of the basis and particulars of the proposed recovery offends elementary fairness,” the judgment said.
Rejecting the SBI’s reliance on an undertaking signed by the petitioner in 2004 permitting adjustment of excess payments, the Delhi High Court held that it was merely a standard-form document obtained during pension formalities and could not override equitable principles protecting pensioners from harsh recovery measures.
“The generic undertaking relied upon by the SBI, obtained at the commencement of family pension, does not, in these facts, suffice to displace the equitable restraint recognised by the Supreme Court,” the judgment held.
Allowing the writ petition, Justice Narula directed the SBI to refund all recovered amounts within eight weeks along with simple interest at 6 per cent per annum calculated from the date of each deduction till actual payment.
(IANS)
