AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. - (1.) PETITIONER has approached this Court praying for quashing of the letter dated 01.12.2012 (Annexure P -3), vide which he has been called upon by the Assistant General Manager, Punjab National Bank, Sector 26 -D, Chandigarh -respondent No. 3 to refund the amount of Rs. 4,00,650/ - being an excess payment of pension for the period 01.01.2006 to 30.09.2012.
(2.) IT is the submission of the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner joined the Department of Police, Haryana, as Constable on 25.04.1970 and retired from service as an Upgraded Constable on 31.10.2004 from the office of the Superintendent of Police, Panchkula. The pension of the petitioner was fixed provisionally because of the departmental proceedings pending against him. After the finalization of the departmental proceedings, regular pension was granted to the petitioner. The pension was being credited to his account by the bank as was fixed by the Accountant General, Haryana and the petitioner had been utilizing the same as and when required. Now vide a communication dated 01.12.2012 (Annexure P -3), he has been called upon to refund an amount of Rs. 4,00,650/ -, which, according to the bank, has been credited in excess in his pensionary account, which, the counsel contends, cannot be permitted in the light of the fact that the petitioner had nothing to do with the fixation of pension or disbursement thereof. His further contention is that the petitioner is a retiree and, therefore, no recovery can be effected from him and in support of this contention, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 24607 of 2010 titled as State of Punjab and others vs. Krishan Kumar Bansal and others, decided on 02.08.2013. On the basis of the said judgment, he contends that the recovery cannot be effected from the petitioner and the petitioner cannot be penalized for some fault, which is not attributable to him nor was he, in any manner, instrumental in commission of the said mistake.
(3.) ON the other hand, counsel for the State submits that the pension of the petitioner was rightly fixed by the Accountant General, Haryana and the details thereof have been mentioned in preliminary submissions of the reply. The same reads as follows: - "1. That the petitioner was enrolled in the Haryana Police Department on 25.04.1970 as a Constable. After completion of 58 years of age he was retired from the service on 31.10.04 from the Distt. Panchkula. At the time of retirement his Basic Pay was Rs. 6800 - P.M.+DA Rs. 3400/ - P.M. After retirement Pension Payment Order number 125020 -S/H.R. was allotted to the petitioner on 16.03.2005 by the Accountant General Haryana, Chandigarh and a total pension amounting to Rs. 5067/ - +DA was fixed. The petitioner is drawing his pension from respondent No. 3 in which he opened his account for the purpose of his pension. This amount of Rs. 5067/ - per month was released as provisional pension because criminal proceeding was pending against him. After completion of departmental enquiry/civil suit, regular pension was granted to the petitioner. Death Cum Retirement Gratuity amounting to Rs. 1,91,862/ - and commutation pension Rs. 2,54,303/ - has already been released in favour of the petitioner. 2. That later on 01.01.2006 regular pension of the petitioner Rs. 5610/ -+DA total amounting to Rs. 7636/ - was fixed by the Accountant General, Haryana, but by mistake the respondent No. 3 paid Rs. 11453/ - to the petitioner. The total amount of pension w.e.f. 01 -01 -2006 to September 2012 comes out to Rs. 6,93,595/ - whereas Rs. 10,94,245/ - has been paid to the petitioner by the respondent No. 3. Now the respondent No. 3 has issued a notice to the petitioner to deposit Rs. 4,00,650/ - paid to him in excess. The petitioner is legally bound to refund the excess amount received by him wrongly as per law settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported as 2012 (8) SCC 417, Chandi Ram V/s State of Uttrakhand." ;