SAYED ABDUL MALIK Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The matter was appearing as item no. 1133 in the Combined Monthly List of May, 2019. On 13th May, 2019 the petitioner appeared in person and mentioned the same for upgradation. Considering the fact that the petitioner is a fairly aged person travelling all the way from Malda to Kolkata to get his matter heard, I directed the matter to appear in the supplementary list on 15th May, 2019 under the heading "Hearing". The petitioner was directed to intimate the order to the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents.

(2.) As the learned advocate for the respondent bank was not readily available due to the ongoing cease work of the learned advocates, the petitioner intimated the order to the respondent bank by a letter dated 13th. May 2019. The bank received the letter on the same day by putting their official seal and signature. The petitioner has also served a copy of the letter upon the State Bank of India, Harishchandrapur Branch, District- Malda by speed post. Copy of the letter showing service upon the respondent bank is already on record. The petitioner submits that a considerable sum is deducted from his pension account every month by the bank. The said deduction is causing severe hardship to the petitioner and his family members. The petitioner and his wife are fairly aged and suffering from various old age ailments. The money is required for their medical expenses. In view of such submission I feel it expedient to allow the petitioner to move the matter in person, in the absence of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent bank. However, the affidavit in opposition filed on behalf of the respondent bank is taken into consideration for ascertaining the stand of the respondents. Shorn of unnecessary details the case of the petitioner is as follows:

(3.) The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police under the Kathiyar Division, Northern Frontier Railways on 22nd June, 1964. He retired on superannuation on 30th April, 2004. By the Pension Payment Order (PPO) dated 30th April, 2004 the Divisional Finance Manager, Northern Frontier Railway, Kathiyar intimated the Manager of the State Bank of India, Malda Main Branch regarding disbursement of pension in favour of the petitioner through Public Sector Bank. The pension payment papers of the petitioner were forwarded along with the said letter. On expiry of every month the petitioner was to receive the sum of money as mentioned in the PPO along with the amount of dearness relief as admissible from time to time. The pension was payable on and from 1st May, 2004. The petitioner all along received the pension from the bank and the said system continued till November, 2015. By a communication dated 22nd December, 2015 the Branch Manager of the Harishchardrapur Branch of the Bank intimated the petitioner that a sum of Rs.4,12,928/- as on November, 2015 had been paid in excess of his normal pension as per the information received from the Centralised Pension Processing Centre, Kolkata. The petitioner was requested to refund the said amount within a period of seven days from the date of receipt of the letter failing which legal courses may be explored against him. It was also mentioned that the Bank was ready to extend support by sanctioning a pensioner's loan in his favour in case all the formalities have been duly complied by the petitioner to avail the said loan.