Patna High Court

Santosh Kumar MishraversusBank of India

Decided: 1 May 2026
Disposal: DISPOSED
Bench: AJIT KUMAR

Holding

The court held that excess pension payments, being public money, must be recovered by the bank, and ordered recovery in equal instalments.

Summary

Santosh Kumar Mishra, a retired Air Force sergeant, received his pension through a Bank of India account. The bank froze Rs. 4,97,817 in his account in 2010 and later recovered Rs. 3,79,403, alleging excess pension payments due to miscalculations. The petitioner sought a waiver of recovery, release of the frozen amount, and refund with interest, arguing that the error was on the bank’s part and that recovery would be inequitable. The bank contended that it acted only as a disbursing authority and, under prevailing guidelines and master circulars, was entitled to recover any excess public money after notice. Relying on precedents such as Rameshwar Ram and Shairun Nisha, the court held that excess pension payments constitute public money and must be recovered, rejecting the petitioner’s claim for a waiver. The court ordered the bank to recover the amount of Rs. 8,88,286 in equal instalments and directed the bank to inform the petitioner of the recovery status, thereby disposing of the writ petition.

Issues considered

Whether the Bank of India, as a disbursing authority, can recover excess pension payments from the petitioner’s account.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to a waiver of recovery and release of the frozen funds on grounds of equity and alleged bank error.
Whether the principle of unjust enrichment or hardship precludes recovery of excess public money.

Subjects

pension
excess payment
recovery
public money
bank as disbursing authority
waiver
frozen account
instalment recovery
equity

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6272 of 2022
======================================================
Santosh Kumar Mishra S/o Late Ram Nagina Mishra, R/o Village - Bedupur,
P.O. - Rampur (Bindalal), P.S. Ekma, District – Saran. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. Bank of India through the Senior Manager, CPPC, Bank of India Building, II
Floor, Kingsway, S.V. Patel Marg, Nagpur - 440001.
2. The Manager, Bank of India, Pankaj Market, Saraiyaganj, Post Box No. 17,
Muzaffarpur- 842001.
3. The Branch Manager, Bank of India, Branch - Parsa Bazar, Saran - 841220.
4. The Union of India through Ministry of Defence.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Maruth Nath Roy,
Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocates.
For the Bank of India : Mr. Rupak Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Vikrant Kumar, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR
ORAL ORDER

16 01-05-2026 Heard Mr. Maruth Nath Roy, learned counsel for the

petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the Respondents.

2. The present writ petition has been preferred to

refrain the respondents from making the recovery from the

pension account of the petitioner and to release the frozen

amount with fixed rate of interest and also to refund the amount

already recovered from the pension of the petitioner with

interest.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner joined the Indian Air Force as an Aircraftsman (Under

Training) on 16.08.1985 at the Administrative Training Institute,

Air Force, Sambra, Belgaum, and was eventually released as a

Sergeant from the 7 BRD Air Force station, Tuglakabad, New

Delhi, on 31.08.2008. Following his release, Pension Payment

Order (PPO) No. 08/14/B/13761/2008 (Annexure-1) was issued
Patna High Court CWJC No.6272 of 2022(16) dt.01-05-2026
2/12

for pension payments into his Bank of India account

(SB449510100009205) at Parsa Bazar, Saran. His pension

underwent several revisions, first via Corrigendum PPO No.

08/14/B/COR/61925/2010 dated 16.02.2010 (Annexure-2),

followed by Corrigendum PPO No. 08/14/B/COR/79591/2012

dated 17.10.2012 (Annexure-3), and again via Corrigendum

PPO No. 08/14/B/COR/20124/2014 dated 08.01.2014, which

was communicated to the Bank of India CPPC Nagpur on

15.01.2014 via letter HQ/99798/700713/08/08/SP/DAV

(Annexure-4). During this timeline, the bank froze a sum of Rs.

4,97,817/- in the petitioner's account on 29.07.2010.

Additionally, in ignorance of the proper legal forum, the

petitioner filed Consumer Forum Case no. 05/2013, which

remains pending and which he intends to withdraw.

4. It has further been submitted that the petitioner

proactively notified the bank regarding extra payments through

multiple emails sent on 15.08.2018, 16.08.2018, 18.09.2018,

30.09.2018, 05.10.2018, 06.10.2018, and 13.10.2018

(Annexure-5). In response, the bank recalculated his pension

from September 2008 to January 2019, determining a net

outstanding amount of Rs. 7,84,287 (Annexure-6). On

14.08.2020, the Ministry of Personnel, PG & Pension issued an
Patna High Court CWJC No.6272 of 2022(16) dt.01-05-2026
3/12

office memorandum providing guidelines for the waiver of

recovery of wrongful or excess payments made to retired

government servants (Annexure-7). This was followed by a

Reserve Bank of India letter (RBI/2020-21/84) dated

21.01.2021 to all agency banks regarding the withdrawal of

circulars related to the recovery of excess pension (Annexure-8).

5. A further revision of the petitioner's pension

occurred via Corrigendum PPO No. 349200814335 dated

17.05.2021, communicated to the bank on 10.06.2021 via letter

HQ/ 99798/ 700713/ 08/08/ SP/DAV (Annexure-9). On

11.09.2021, the petitioner submitted a representation to Bank of

India authorities seeking a waiver of recovery and the release of

his frozen funds (Annexure-10). However, via Reference

PB/UK/20-21 dated 04.10.2021, the Branch Manager clarified

that the waiver guidelines were inapplicable as the bank acted as

an agent, not an employer, and stated that Rs. 4,04,884 was to

be recovered (Annexure-11). To date, the bank has already

recovered Rs. 3,79,403/- from the petitioner's account. In

ignorance of the proper legal forum, the petitioner had

previously filed Consumer Forum Case No. 05/2013, which is

still pending and which he intends to withdraw. Furthermore, the

bank has frozen a sum of Rs. 4,97,817 in the petitioner’s
Patna High Court CWJC No.6272 of 2022(16) dt.01-05-2026
4/12

account since 29.07.2010, an amount which was originally paid

against Corrigendum PPO No. 08/14/B/CORR/61925/2010

dated 16.02.2010.

6. Lastly, the learned counsel for the petitioner

submits that there has not been any misrepresentation on the

part of this petitioner or fraud committed rather the mistake or

error in the calculation, if any, is attributable to the Bank, hence,

the recovery from the account of the petitioner would be

inequitus or harsh, which needs to be interfered in the light of

Hon’ble Apex Court judgment passed in the case of State of

Punjab v. Rafiq Masih[(2015) 4 SCC 334)].

7. On the contrary, learned counsel for the Bank

submits that the issues with regard to recovery of excess amount

paid to the pensioner by the bank who has been ensuring the

pension to the pensioners, only in the capacity of Disbursing

Authority, has been duly considered by this Court in the case of

Rameshwar Ram v. The Union of India & Ors (CWJC No.

288 of 2023 & Other analogous cases) and order of recovery

has been fond sustainable.

8. It has next been submitted that relying upon the

said judgment another similar matter in the case of Shairun

Nisha v. The Union Of India & Ors (CWJC No. 5395 of 2021)
Patna High Court CWJC No.6272 of 2022(16) dt.01-05-2026
5/12

has also been decided by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court

and the petitioner’s case is squarely covered by the same dictum

and, as such, the instant case needs to be disposed of in the light

of aforementioned adjudication.

9. Having considered the submissions advanced on

behalf of the learned counsel for the respective parties and

taking note of the order/judgment passed in the aforesaid case,

this Court finds that the submissions made by the learned

counsel for the petitioner cannot be sustained in law because the

excess payment is a public money which is often described as

tax payers’ money and the same does not belong either to the

officers who have effected over payment or to the recipient and

this Court in the case of Rameshwar Ram (Supra) has already

dealt with the similar issues and has held as follows:-

“20. This Court has heard the learned

counsel for the respective parties and also

examined the materials on record meticulously.

One thing it is admitted that the role of the

respondent Bank is only limited to the extent of

drawing and disbursing authority, who ensure

payment of pension on the basis of authority letter

issued by the competent authority, i.e., the
Patna High Court CWJC No.6272 of 2022(16) dt.01-05-2026
6/12

Accountant General (A&E), Bihar, Patna on being

sanctioned by the concerned

Department/institution/authority under which the

employees had rendered their services. Thus, there

is no relationship of the employer and employee

between the Bank and the pensioner. That apart,

the function of the Bank is being regulated by the

master circular(s) issued from time to time by the

higher authorities of the Bank empowering the

Bank to recover the excess amount, which is paid

on account of mistake or miscalculation, after

giving proper demand notice.

21. After careful examination of the

judgments rendered by the Apex Court in the case

of Sahib Ram Vs. The State of Haryana [1995

supp (1) SCC 18]; Syed Abdul Kadir Vs The State

of Bihar [(2009) 3 SCC 475], Rafiq Masih (supra)

as also the Thomas Daniel (supra), it goes without

saying that the mandate of the Supreme Court not

to recover the excess amount is based upon equity,

in case the excess payment was not made on

account of misrepresentation or fraud on the part
Patna High Court CWJC No.6272 of 2022(16) dt.01-05-2026
7/12

of the employee or made by the employer by

applying a wrong principle for calculating the

pay/allowance or on the basis of a particular

interpretation of rule/order, which is subsequently

found to be erroneous or where court arrives at the

conclusion that the recovery if made from the

employee would be iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary

to such an extent, as would far outweigh the

equitable balance of the employer’s right to

recover.

22. Taking note of the aforenoted settled

proposition of law, this Court feels it apt and

proper to quote paragraph nos. 13 and 14 of the

judgment rendered in the case of Chandi Prasad

Uniyal (supra) where the learned Apex Court has

observed as follows:

“13. We are not convinced

that this Court in various judgments

referred to hereinbefore has laid down

any proposition of law that only if the

State or its officials establish that

there was misrepresentation or fraud
Patna High Court CWJC No.6272 of 2022(16) dt.01-05-2026
8/12

on the part of the recipients of the

excess pay, then only the amount paid

could be recovered. On the other

hand, most of the cases referred to

hereinbefore turned on the peculiar

facts and circumstances of those cases

either because the recipients had

retired or were on the verge of

retirement or were occupying lower

posts in the administrative hierarchy.

14. We are concerned with

the excess payment of public money

which is often described as

"taxpayers' money" which belongs

neither to the officers who have

effected overpayment nor to the

recipients. We fail to see why the

concept of fraud or misrepresentation

is being brought in in such situations.

The question to be asked is whether

excess money has been paid or not,

may be due to a bona fide mistake.
Patna High Court CWJC No.6272 of 2022(16) dt.01-05-2026
9/12

Possibly, effecting excess payment of

public money by the government

officers may be due to various reasons

like negligence, carelessness,

collusion, favouritism, etc., because

money in such situation does not

belong to the payer or the payee.

Situations may also arise where both

the payer and the payee are at fault,

then the mistake is mutual. Payments

are being effected in many situations

without any authority of law and

payments have been received by the

recipients also without any authority

of law. Any amount paid/received

without the authority of law can

always be recovered barring few

exceptions of extreme hardships but

not as a matter of right, in such

situations law implies an obligation

on the payee to repay the money,

otherwise it would amount to unjust
Patna High Court CWJC No.6272 of 2022(16) dt.01-05-2026
10/12

enrichment.”

23. Further in the case in hand before

making payment of pension the petitioners were put

to notice and the petitioners had already furnished

undertaking that they would refund the excess

amount paid and thus they are bound by the

undertaking. The aforesaid proposition has well

explained and propounded by a 3-Judge Bench of

the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jagdeo

Singh (supra) wherein the Hon’ble Court taking

note of the earlier judgment rendered in the case of

Rafiq Masih (supra) has held that in case where

officers to whom payment was made in the first

instance was clearly placed on notice that any

payment found to have been made in excess would

be required to be refunded, the officer furnished an

undertaking while opting for the revised pay scale,

he is bound by the undertaking.

24. In view of the afore-noted settled

legal position and the fact that the petitioners have

been accorded excess payment on account of

wrong calculation or miscalculation and thus, in
Patna High Court CWJC No.6272 of 2022(16) dt.01-05-2026
11/12

no stretch of imagination the same cannot be

recovered, otherwise certainly it would amount to

unjust enrichment, for which the petitioners are not

legally entitled to receive. Any person who receives

an excess amount more than to his entitlement

owes a duty to repay the same as the amount is not

of the officer/department but of the common

man/tax payer.”

10. Accordingly, in terms of order dated 23.09.2024

passed by the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Shairun Nisha

v. The Union Of India & Ors (CWJC No. 5395 of 2021), this

case is disposed of with a direction to the Respondent-Bank to

recover the amount in same proportion by fixing equal

installments for making recovery of access amount to the tune

of Rs. 8,88,286/-.

11. It is made clear that the Respondent-Bank before

effecting recovery would inform the petitioner with regard to the

status of the amount due to be recovered.

12. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner

submits that the amount which was received towards pension

against which the petitioner is said to have paid income tax, the

Respondent-Bank may be directed to adjust the amount which
Patna High Court CWJC No.6272 of 2022(16) dt.01-05-2026
12/12

has been deposited by this petitioner towards the income tax. If

any amount which has been deposited by this petitioner towards

the income tax on unearned income, the same shall be adjusted

appropriately towards recovery.

13. The writ petition with the aforesaid direction and

observation stands disposed of.

(Ajit Kumar, J)
perwez

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…