Recovery Of Excess Amount From Pensioners Cannot Be Done By Banks In One Stroke: Karnataka HC Comes To Aid Of 73 Yrs Old Widow
The Karnataka High Court has said that though recovery of excess amounts paid by banks to pensioners is permitted, that would not mean that the excess is to be recovered in one stroke. Such amount may be recovered in monthly installments, it said. A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna was hearing the case of a 73-years-old widow aggrieved by the action of Canara Bank which...
The Karnataka High Court has said that though recovery of excess amounts paid by banks to pensioners is permitted, that would not mean that the excess is to be recovered in one stroke. Such amount may be recovered in monthly installments, it said.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna was hearing the case of a 73-years-old widow aggrieved by the action of Canara Bank which debited Rs. 6,40,000 from her family pension account without even any communication.
The bench observed that the Bank had paid Rs.96,998/- per month as pension to her husband instead of Rs.38,604/- for approximately two years. This led to excess payment of Rs.13,40,261/-. The mistake was realized following the demise of her husband and thereafter, the Bank passed a recovery order against the widow, stalled processing her family pension and debited the aforementioned amount.
"The Bank has harassed the petitioner for 7 months after the death of her husband for a certain act that she is not even aware of...it has become difficult to sustain herself and her grocery bills and medical bills have all been left unpaid and she is in a pitiful state. This state of affairs does not even move the Bank and unauthorised debit continues," the High Court observed at the outset.
The Bank argued that the Petitioner is in receipt of "unjust enrichment" and that her husband very well knew about the inadvertent threefold increase in the amount being paid as pension. The increase was on account of certain mistakes in the CPPC...whether the petitioner is aware of the deposit or not, cannot be a ground to deny refund of the entire excess amount as it is public money, the Bank claimed.
The High Court then clarified that though recovery of excess amount is permitted in terms of the Master Circular for disbursement of Government Pension, that would not mean that the amount that is paid in excess is to be recovered in one stroke that too, from the petitioner who is a widow depending on family pension and is suffering from ailments at the age of 73 years. "Pension is not a bounty or a gratis that is granted to the pensioner or his family for the Bank to deal with it at its whim and fancy," it remarked.
The Court thus directed the bank to re-credit the amount to the petitioner's family pension account within two weeks and also pay appropriate pension without any deductions on this issue. It permitted recovery of the amount in equal monthly instalments of Rs.4,000/- from the hands of the petitioner.
The Court also suggested that appropriate action be taken against the erring Bank officials by fixing accountability as per law. "The Officers of the Bank who have indulged in such callous or reckless transfer of excess pension to the account of the husband of the petitioner should be made/held accountable for such act."
Case Title: VIMALA RAMANATH PAWAR v. SENIOR MANAGER, CENTRALISED PENSION PROCESSING CENTRE & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 20321 OF 2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 451
Date of Order: 27TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022
Appearance: Advocate YOGESH NAIK, FOR B.O.ANIL KUMAR., ADVOCATE for petitioner; T.P.MUTHANNA, ADVOCATE for respondent.