IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No.11027 of 2010
RAM SWAROOP SINGH, Son of Late Lakshman Singh, aged
about 80 years, resident of Village-Bajitpur, Post Office, Shabani,
District-Patna ------------------ Petitioner
Versus
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the District Magistrate,Patna
2. The Treasury Officer,Patna
3. The Zonal Manager, State Bank of India, Main Branch, West
Gandhi Maidan,Patna
4. The Chief Manager, Centralised Pension Processing Cell, State
Bank of India, Exhibition Road,Patna
5. The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Athmalgola Branch,
District-Patna ------------------------- Respondents.
-----------
04 10-12-2010 Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the
petitioner, Sri Rakesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of Respondent nos.3,4 and 5 and Smt. Shashi Priya, learned
A.C. to G.A.4.
In the present writ petition, the grievance of the petitioner
is that he was getting pension amounting to Rs.3895/- regularly
through the State Bank of India, Athmalgola Branch, Patna.
However, without any rhyme and reason with effect from Month
April, 2008 pension of the petitioner was reduced from Rs.3895/- to
Rs.2963/-. After noticing the error, the petitioner represented before
the Branch Manager as well as Treasury Officer, i.e. Respondent
no.1.
In the present writ petition, a counter affidavit has been
filed on behalf of Respondent nos.3,4 and 5 ,i.e. the State Bank of
India, in which it has been admitted that the pension was incorrectly
reduced . However, the reduction was due to the reason, which was
2
beyond the control of the Bank. It has been stated that the pension of
the petitioner was reduced due to erroneous migration to Data
without dearness pension by the Branch, which was subsequently
corrected and arrears was paid with dearness pension with effect
from March, 2008 to June, 2010. In paragraph-6, it was submitted
by Sri Rakesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the Bank that
instead of “June, 2010” the word “January, 2010” has been wrongly
typed. The difference of amount has already been paid to the
petitioner by the Bank. The total amount was Rs.78, 958/-.
In view of the stand taken by the Bank, Sri Rajesh Kumar
Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Bank has
paid only those amounts to the petitioner, which were incorrectly
reduced by the Bank. According to the petitioner, he is entitled to
get interest at the market rate on the incorrectly deducted amount,i.e.
78,958.
The stand of the petitioner has been vehemently opposed
by Sri Rakesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the Respondent
nos.3, 4 and 5. It was submitted that the pension was reduced not
intentionally but due to error in Data, such deduction was made.
The fact remains that the petitioner’s pension was
incorrectly reduced by the Bank and the reduced amount was with
the Bank from the month of April 2008 to the month of June 2010.
The Court is of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to get
interest on the amount, which was incorrectly reduced by the Bank
in similar manner as the Bank is charging from the customer.
Accordingly, the writ petition is being disposed of with a
3
direction to the Bank to calculate the interest on the incorrectly
deducted amount and make payment to the petitioner within a period
of one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this
order.
With above observation and direction, the petition stands
disposed of .
NKS/- ( Rakesh Kumar, J.)