PARAMJIT KAUR Vs. ACCOUNTANT GENERAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through instituting the present writ petition, the petitioner impugns the demand notice dtd. 12/4/2021 (Annexure P-2), whereby the respondent No.2- State Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as the "S.B.I."), being the pension disbursing authority, has sought to recover the excess payment of family pension from the petitioner.

(2.) Assailing the impugned demand notice, the principal contention advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is that there was neither any misrepresentation, fraud, deception, nor concealment of material facts on the part of the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner had no role whatsoever in the fixation or calculation of the family pension payable to her. The excess payment, if any, was solely on account of an error committed by the S.B.I. and, therefore, recovery of such excess amount is impermissible in law, particularly when tested on the anvil of equity.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is solely dependent upon the meagre family pension for her sustenance and has no other source of income to survive in the twilight years of her life, especially while grappling with multiple age-related ailments. To lend vigour to his arguments, learned counsel places reliance upon the verdict rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "State of Punjab and Others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Others", (2015) 4 SCC 334.