(1.) The Petitioner who is a widow, aged 77 years, is aggrieved by the action of Respondent No. 2 State Bank of India ('SBI') in acting on some instructions issued by the Indian Agricultural Research Institute ('IARI'), Respondent No. 1 asking SBI to recover the alleged excess pension paid into her Savings Bank ('SB') account with the SBI.
(2.) The Petitioner states that her late husband Shri Wazir Chand Manchanda worked in the IARI as a Senior Research Assistant. After his death, on 13th July 1990, the Petitioner as his widow was receiving the family pension. For this purpose, she was asked to open a SB account with the Tilak Nagar branch of the SBI into which the family pension paid by IARI was being credited every month.
(3.) The Petitioner states that as on 25th February 2006, there was a credit balance of Rs. 1,08,169.06 in the said account. However, a cheque issued by her on 1st March 2006 for an amount of Rs. 80,550/- was returned dishonoured by the SBI with remarks "Funds Insufficient". On inquiry by the Petitioner, she received a letter dated 28th March 2006 from the Chief Manager of SBI enclosing a copy of the letter dated 27th February 2006 issued by the IARI stating that excess family pension had been paid into the Petitioner's account and drawn by her. The SBI asked her to "deposit the excess payment within 100 days" failing which it would "recover the excess amount paid by debit to your savings bank account of FDR." In her reply dated 4th April 2006, the Petitioner pointed out that the SBI, could not at the instance of the IARI seek to recover the alleged excess family pension in that manner after a lapse of 11 years. She sent a legal notice dated 8th April 2006 to the SBI calling upon it to honour the cheque issued by her in the sum of Rs. 80,550/-. The drawee of the cheque was also advised to re-present the cheque to SBI for clearance. However, SBI again dishonoured the cheque with remarks "Refer to drawer". The stand of the SBI was that since the Petitioner had not complied with the directions of the SBI to deposit into the account the excess pension drawn by her, no transaction would be allowed on her account. It was also stated by SBI in a reply dated 24th April 2006 to her legal notice that the Petitioner had furnished an undertaking to the bank whereby she had undertaken to refund or make good to the bank any amount to which she was not entitled and had further agreed that the amount when demanded by the bank would be conclusive and binding on her.