THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO Writ Petition No.20260 of 1998 (DATED: 22-01-2008) Between: P.Satyawathi W/o late P.V.Ramana D.No.57-24-64, Thummadapalem Kancherpalem, Visakhapatnam …Petitioner A n d The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Industrial Estate Branch, Visakhapatnam and others …Respondents ORDER: Heard Sri P.B.Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.Rajashekar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 2. The writ petitioner’s husband Sri P.V.Ramana while working as Motor Transport Driver with the Naval Armament Depot at Visakhapatnam met with an untimely death on 7.1.1988. Since the said individual had rendered enough length of service to qualify for sanction of pension, his widow, the petitioner herein, has been sanctioned family pension. On family pension, Dearness Relief has also been sanctioned and paid. 3. But, however considering the pathetic condition of living of the family of the deceased Ramana, the petitioner herein appears to have been appointed on compassionate basis as an unskilled labour with the same Naval Depot with effect from 24.1.1991. Notwithstanding her appointment on compassionate basis, the respondents continued to pay family pension to the individual together with Dearness Relief thereon. But, however, during September 1997, this erroneous payment of Dearness Relief on the family pension component for an employee has come to be detected and consequently payment of Dearness Relief on the family pension has been stopped. That apart, an attempt has also been made to calculate the Dearness Relief that has been paid from 24.1.1991 onwards on the family pension paid to the petitioner herein and that was sought to be recovered as well. 4. Though an attempt has been made to contest the correctness of withholding of payment of Dearness Relief on the family pension component, but nonetheless, the attention of this Court had been drawn to the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. G.Vasudevan Pillay[1], wherein the Supreme Court had concluded the issue to the following effect: “ In some of the cases, we are concerned with the denial of Dearness Relief on family pension on employment of dependants like widows of the ex- servicemen. This decision has to be sustained in view of what has been stated above regarding denial of DR on pension on re-employment inasmuch as the official documents referred on that point also mention about denial of DR on family pension on employment. The rationale of this decision is getting of Dearness Allowance by the dependants on their pay, which is drawn following employment, because of which Dearness Relief on family pension can justly be denied, as has been done”. The above contention has not been rightly stressed any further. 5. Even dealing with the question of recovery of the excess Dearness Relief paid on the family pension component, the issue was again considered by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Rekha Majhi [2], wherein it was held that the recovery of excess pension paid to the respondents is not justified both on legal and equitable grounds, and therefore, recovery of excess payment of Dearness Relief on the family pension component is ordered not to be recovered at all. 6. The fact situation existing in the present case is on all fours with the facts presented in Rekha Majhi’s case (2nd supra). It is not in dispute that the writ petitioner had been paid the Dearness Relief on the family pension by the respondents due to a mistaken notion that the petitioner is entitled to be paid the Dearness Relief also notwithstanding her employment as an unskilled labour on compassionate grounds with the Naval Armament Depot. This excess payment is not the result of any misrepresentation either factual or otherwise on the part of the writ petitioner. She has not played any role in securing this pecuniary advantage. 7. This apart, persons of the standing of the writ petitioner in society can hardly be expected to keep large amounts of money in reserve in anticipation of any contingent circumstances, like the necessity to repay the amount to the respondents, arising at a later point of time. Persons like the writ petitioner frame rules of their life according to the resources available at present. They would hardly be saving much money in the process. It is, therefore, wholly unjust and inequitable to compel such persons to pay back huge money. For variety of reasons, this chemistry need not be elaborated. The hardship that will be visiting in cases of this nature would outweigh the advantage of the respondents recovering excess payment made. Since the respondents have also contributed in a certain measure resulting in payment of excess money, it is only appropriate that they should not be allowed to recover the excess payment of the Dearness Relief paid to the writ petitioner up to September 1997. 8. The writ petition deserves to be allowed to the extent indicated above and the respondents are directed not to affect any recovery from the wages or salary payable to the petitioner or from any other source towards excess of Dearness Relief paid on the family pension component to the petitioner. No costs. ________________________________ NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J 22-01-2008 RAR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO Writ Petition No.20260 of 1998 (DATED: 22-01-2008) [1] 1995 Supreme Court Cases (L&S) 396 [2] 2000(2) SLR 642