Jhalak Raj Devi v. The Union Of India And ORS.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6500 of 2015 ====================================================== Jhalak Raj Devi W/o.- Late Sub Ram Bilas Singh, Resident of Village/Mohalla.- Fazalganj, Post office.- Sasaram, Police Station.- Sasaram Town, District.- Rohtas Bihar ... ... Petitioner

Versus

1.

The Union Of India through the Defence Secretary, Govt. of India, New Delhi 2.

The Central Defence Academy P Allahabad.

3.

Commanding Officer-cum-assistant record officer, Allahabad. 4.

The Chairman/Managing Director of State Bank of India Mumbai. 5.

The Chief General Manager, Local head Office, Gandhi Maidan Patna. 6.

The Branch Manager State Bank of India, Sasaram, Rohtas Bihar ... ... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Sandip Singh For the Respondent/s :

Mr. S.D.Sanjay, ASG Mr. Ravinder Kumar Sharma, CGC ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL ORDER 10-07-2019 On the basis of certain audit objection regarding some excess payment being made to the petitioner on account of family pension, recovery of an amount of Rs. 5,67,675/- is sought to be made from the petitioner, wife of deceased Ex Subedar.

The admitted position is that excess payment was discovered in an audit operation but prior thereto the same was determined by the authorities themselves, though it is submitted that it was wrongly determined. The petitioner is not in any way responsible for wrong determination. The mistake was

Patna High Court CWJC No.6500 of 2015(6) dt.10-07-2019 2/2 committed by respondent authorities.

Learned ASG has submitted that audit objection has necessitated recovery as admittedly the fixation was wrong. The petitioner is a widow and allowing recovery of such amount from the her would lead to extreme and sever hardship in view of the grade of service in which her husband was serving and having regard to the law laid down with regard to recovery in the case of State of Punjab vs. Rafiq Masih reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334.

This Court, therefore, would direct that on account of the order dated 10.11.204 no further recovery shall be made from the petitioner in respect of excess already paid. The respondents however would be fully justified in paying the due amount to the petitioner on account of family pension prospectively.

The writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. (Madhuresh Prasad, J) SNkumar/- U