SADANAND Vs. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA NAGPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of the writ petition, contended that the recovery from petitioner's pension due to wrong fixation of his pension cannot be made in view of the fact that the petitioner did not misrepresent the employer and there was no fault on his part. Though two instalments have been recovered by the employer same are liable to be refunded and rest of the recovery is liable to be stopped. He relied on the decision in Shyam Babu Verma vs. Union of India,1994 27 ETC 121 and unreported decision of this Court in Chandrarao Balkirshna Sawant vs. State of Maharashtra, W. P. No. 430 of 2005 decided on 23-6-2005. Mr. Jamal however fairly admits that the petitioner was not entitled to the said amount under recovery of Rs. 27,888/- and that was in fact a mistake.

(3.) Per contra, Mr. Bhangde learned counsel for the respondent, argued that the pension case of the petitioner was required to be reviewed in view of the clerical mistake committed by the concerned clerk in computing petitioner's pensionable service of 26 years when the same was infact 25 years and the said mistake was corrected. He then argued that the petitioner is presently working as Professor of Law in the Post Graduate Department of Law in Nagpur University and is getting monthly salary of not less than Rs. 40,000/-. He submitted that when the petitioner took voluntary retirement from the respondent-Bank he received Rs. 11 lacs and therefore there is no element of hardship. He relied on the decision of Supreme Court in Col. B. J. Akkara vs. Govt, of India and ors., 2006 11 SCC 709. Learned counsel for the respondent stated that the petitioner had given an undertaking that in case excess amount is found the petitioner would not object to the recovery thereof.