Uma Devi v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No 3102 of 2019 ====================================================== Uma Devi, aged about 72 years, Female, W/o Late Ram Bihari Singh, Vill. and P.O.- Ariaon, P.S.-Krishnabrahm, Distt.- Buxar, At present - C/o S.C. Gupta, Sunder Bhawan, Kannu Lal Road, Mithapur, PS.- Jakkanpur, Distt.- Patna ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 2.

The Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 3.

The Accountant General (A and E) Bihar, Patna 4.

The State Bank of India through the Assistant General Manager, C.P.P.C. 4th Floor, Administrative Building, Judges Court Road, Patna 5.

The Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Branch Exhibition Road, Patna ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr Bibhakar Tiwary, Advocate For the S t a t e :

Mr Harish Kumar, GP VIII For the A G :

Mr Rabindra Kr Priyadarshi, Advocate For the B a n k :

Mr Satyendra Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 25-07-2019 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner, State Bank of India (for brevity, Bank) and the Accountant General. 2 Petitioner has approached this Court for a direction to produce the letter by which the amount of Rs 10,04,277/- paid excess on account of pension to the petitioner is sought to be recovered by the Bank and for a direction restraining the Bank from making such recoveries.

Patna High Court CWJC No.3102 of 2019 dt.25-07-2019 2/2 3 Bank has filed a counter affidavit annexing a letter of undertaking that in case of excess payment, the same would be subject to recovery. Bank has also placed on record the details in respect of the calculation of excess amount paid to the petitioner. The fact of excess payment having been made, though it is not disputed but the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that bare perusal of the signature of the petitioner in Annexure 5 to the rejoinder, i e, the petitioner's signature on the pension book, differs with the signature on the letter of undertaking produced by the Bank.

4 This disputed issue of fact should have been raised by the petitioner in appropriate proceedings. The same can only be decided on evidence and material in appropriate proceedings. 5 With liberty, as aforesaid, writ petition is dismissed. (Madhuresh Prasad, J) M.E.H./- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 30.07.2019 Transmission Date NA