Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, a 62-year-old widow, received family pension following the death of her husband, a Second Division Assistant who died in harness in 2004. Full family pension was determined at Rs.2430 plus dearness allowance, payable until the date his superannuation would have occurred in 2011. Thereafter, normal family pension at Rs.1215 plus DA was payable. However, the respondents continued depositing the full amount, resulting in excess payment. In 2016, when the petitioner visited the bank, she was informed that her account was blocked due to excess payment. She immediately gave a representation offering to recover Rs.50,000, the then excess, but no action was taken. Over the years, the excess grew to Rs.2,34,158 due to inaction. The petitioner repeatedly represented to the bank and also complained to the Banking Ombudsman, but her account remained blocked, depriving her of her livelihood. She filed the writ petition seeking mandamus to unblock the account. The court found that the excess payment was not due to any fraud or misrepresentation by the petitioner but due to the respondents' failure to revise the pension in 2011. The court held that while the government has the power to recover excess payments, it cannot unilaterally block the entire pension account without notice, especially when the pensioner is a widow dependent on the pension. Such action violates principles of natural justice. The court directed the respondents to unblock the account and release the family pension forthwith, with liberty to recover the excess amount after issuing due notice and in installments. The writ petition was allowed.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Right to Livelihood and Family Pension - Recovery of Excess Pension Without Notice Violates Principles of Natural Justice - Constitution of India, Articles 226, 227 - Petitioner was a widow receiving family pension; excess payment occurred due to oversight by authorities in not revising pension after time; bank blocked her account without notice or recovery proceedings, causing hardship. Held, the bank and government cannot unilaterally block the account and recover excess pension without following due process; directed to unblock account and release pension, with liberty to recover excess after due notice and in installments (Paras 9-13).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the bank and government can unilaterally block a family pension account and recover excess pension without giving notice and following due process
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to unblock the petitioner's account and release family pension, with liberty to recover excess amount after issuing due notice and in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Excess pension paid to account not attributable to fraud by pensioner cannot be recovered unilaterally without due process
- recovery of excess pension must follow principles of natural justice
Case Details
2026 LawText (KAR) (05) 25
WRIT PETITION No.22058 OF 2021 (GM – RES)
Hanumanthappa Haravi Gowdar B., Advocate for petitioner; Nayana Tara B.G., Advocate for R1 to R4; N. Kumar, AGA for R5
1. The General Manager, Canara Bank, Head Office, 2. The Deputy General Manager, Canara Bank, Circle Office, 3. The Assistant General Manager, Canara Bank (e-Syndicate Bank), BWSSB Branch, 4. The Executive Director, Canara Bank, Corporate Office, 5. The Joint Director, Pension Payment Treasury
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution seeking mandamus to direct respondents to consider representation for unblocking family pension account and releasing pension.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought direction to respondents to consider her representation dated 22-07-2021 and unblock her family pension account.
Filing Reason
The bank blocked the petitioner's family pension account without notice due to excess pension payment, causing hardship; representations were ignored.
Previous Decisions
Previous decisions not referenced
Issues
Whether the bank and government can unilaterally block a family pension account and recover excess pension without due notice and following principles of natural justice?
Whether the petitioner is entitled to mandamus for unblocking account?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner: argued that excess payment was not her fault; she had given consent to recover Rs.50,000, but bank did not act; blocking caused extreme hardship; representations ignored; entitled to relief.
Bank: argued that it followed directions of Treasury and cannot be faulted; account blocked as per instructions.
Government: argued that excess payment must be recovered; bank is responsible per contract; state has power to recover excess payments.
Ratio Decidendi
When excess pension is paid to a pensioner due to oversight of authorities and not attributable to fraud or misrepresentation by the pensioner, the authorities cannot unilaterally block the pension account and recover the excess without issuing notice and following due process. Blocking of the entire pension account without notice violates principles of natural justice, especially when the pensioner is a widow dependent on the pension. Recovery can be effected only after due notice and in installments if necessary.
Judgment Excerpts
It is to be noticed, that it was not the folly of the petitioner or it was a misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner that excess pension was deposited into her account.
The petitioner offered that if there was excess to recover it in installments of Rs.2000/- a month as she was not in a position to pay at one lumpsum. This was also not acceded to by the Bank.
Procedural History
The petitioner submitted representations to the bank starting 07-11-2016 after discovering account blocked; later gave representation offering recovery of Rs.50,000 on 18-03-2017; complained to Banking Ombudsman on 13-07-2021; no resolution; filed writ petition in 2021 seeking mandamus.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Articles 226, 227
