1 S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 891/1998 Ex. Nayak Babu Lal Vs. S.B.B.J. & Anr. Date of Order :: 01.04.2009 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr G.R. Punia, for the petitioner. Mr S.S. Purohit, for the respondents. ... On being retired from Indian Army on 31.7.1998 the petitioner was re-employed as Guard with respondent- State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur (hereinafter to be referred to as, 'the Bank'). The Bank made payment of salary and other admissible allowances including the dearness relief to the petitioner and also the pension against the services rendered to Indian Army with dearness allowance. On 13.1.1998 a sum of Rs.13168/- was deposited in the petitioner's saving bank account as arrear due to revision of pay scales, however, out of that a sum of Rs.13,000/- was debited by the Bank from the petitioner's saving bank account on the same day. On knowing about that and also about recovery at the rate of 200/- per month the petitioner submitted a notice through his counsel to the respondent-Bank showing intention to initiate appropriate proceedings in the event of further deduction from his pension. In response to the notice aforesaid the Bank vide its letter dated 17.4.1998 informed that despite non- entitlement for dearness relief and pension, the same was given, and therefore, the 2 excess amount so paid is required to be recovered. By the same communication it was also informed to the petitioner that out of total amount paid in excess that is of Rs.33,963/- a sum of Rs.19, 563/- is yet to be recovered. Being aggrieved by the same the petitioner preferred this petition for writ. This Court on 27.3.1998 admitted the petition for writ for hearing and also restrained the respondents as an interim measure from effecting recovery from the petitioner's pension. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that as per the Government of India office memorandum dated 2.7.1999 as also adopted by the Ministry of Defence for all retired defence personnels, the petitioner is entitled for receiving dearness relief on the pension received by him against the services rendered with Indian Army. Per contra stand of the Bank is that the right to receive dearness relief with pension against the services rendered to Indian Army accrued to the petitioner w.e.f. 18.7.1997, and as such, prior to that whatever amount paid to him against dearness relief with pension was erroneous and the Bank is having all authority to recover the amount paid in excess. Heard counsel for the parties. 3 The memorandum dated 2.7.1999 is available on record as Annexure-9. From perusal of the document aforesaid it is apparent that the central government pensioners who were/are re-employed under the Central Government or the State Government or a Corporation/ Company/Body/Bank including autonomous organization in India or abroad or had/have been permanently absorbed in such Corporation/ Company/Body/Bank or autonomous organization are entitled for dearness relief w.e.f July 18, 1997. In view of office memorandum aforesaid, which is also adopted by the Ministry of Defence, the entitlement of the petitioner for receiving dearness relief with pension accrued only from July 18, 1997, and as such, whatever amount paid against dearness relief to him prior to 18.7.1997 was erroneous. No wrong, therefore, is committed by the Bank by determining the same as amount said to be paid in excess than to the entitlement right of the petitioner. The only question now survives is whether it was open for the Bank to recover the amount said to be paid in excess? It is relevant to note that whatever amount paid to the petitioner in excess that was neither at the request of the petitioner nor because of any misrepresentation made by him. If some error was made by the respondent-bank then the petitioner should not have been subjected to unilateral recovery of the amount from his saving account. Be that as it may, till now the respondents have already 4 recovered a sum of Rs.13,400/- from the petitioner, and this amount was given to him erroneously, thus, I do not consider it appropriate to direct the respondent-bank to refund the same to the petitioner, however, the Bank is restrained from effecting recovery of the rest of the amount said to be paid in excess in view of the fact that the same was paid due to error on part of Bank, without having any misrepresented demand by the petitioner. With the directions above the petition for writ stands disposed of. No order as to costs. (GOVIND MATHUR), J. Jgoyal '