IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5855 of 2005 BINDESHWARI SINGH, son of late Ram Swaroop Singh, resident of Village Masaurhi, P.S. Masaurhi, District – Patna. ________ Petitioner Versus 1. UNION OF INDIA through its Senior Accounts Officer, Controller of Defence Account, Allahabad. 2. The Senior Accounts Officer, Controller of Defence Account, Allahabad, 4, Ponnappa Road, Draupadi Ghat, Allahabad. 3. The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Branch - Masaurhi, P S – Masaurhi, District-Patna. ___________ Respondents ----------- For the petitioner: Mr. Vinay Mistry. For the SBI: Mrs. Nilu Agrawal. For the Union of India: Mr.Sarvadeo Singh. ______ 04. 12.02.2009 Petitioner approached the Court, who is retired defence personnel, when the respondent Bank stopped payment of his pension without any information for reason being intimated to him. After filing of the writ application the respondent Bank has filed a counter affidavit which has been sworn by the Branch Manager of State Bank of India, Masaurhi Branch. They have stated in the counter affidavit that pension was authorized to the petitioner and payments have been made, based on the said authorization but because of the two pensioners having similar name, by mistake of a clerical kind petitioner was being credited with pension of Rs.2707/- per month w.e.f. 1.8.1998 instead of Rs.1414/- to which he was entitled to. - 2 - When this matter was subsequently discovered on 31.8.2004 the authorities took a corrective measure by only crediting 2/3rd of pension in his account and utilizing 1/3rd for adjustment of excess payment which came to be made to the present petitioner. They have further stated that pension from the month of August, 2004 has been released and there is no impediment in such payment except the deduction. Another statement which has been made is that authorization of disability pension in favour of the petitioner of Rs.90/- was only till 22nd December, 1991 and therefore, there is no question of payment of disability pension beyond that date unless a fresh authorization is made in favour of the petitioner. Besides the above assertion respondents have also brought the pension papers on record in support of their statement. No doubt rejoinder to the counter affidavit of respondent No.3 has been filed by the petitioner but he has chosen to be silent as to what was the authorization of pension in his favour and what his entitlement was. He has only tried to put the blame on the bank and state that such a clerical mistake cannot be the ground for deducting 1/3rd of his pension by the bank now. The question for consideration is as to what is the entitlement of the petitioner as a pensioner. It will never be more than what authorization was made in his favour. If the authorization of pension is Rs.1414/- and may be by a clerical mistake or omission petitioner was paid higher pension then the bank has to take steps for adjustment of the accounts because public money cannot be - 3 - allowed to be squandered in this fashion in favour of a person and to an entitlement which is not to accrue to him. Petitioner has not made out a case for interference. In view of the stated position of the respondents, the writ application has no merit. The same is dismissed. rkp (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J)