Judgment :- 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking for a direction to forbear the respondents from effecting any recovery from the pension payable to the petitioner in the savings bank account maintained in the second respondent bank and to direct the respondents to refund the amount already recovered from June, 2011 together with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. 2. When the writ petition came up on 18.04.2012, this court ordered notice of motion and had granted an interim injunction for a limited period. The interim order was extended from time to time. The respondents on notice has filed a counter affidavit, dated 16.7.2012. The petitioner filed a reply affidavit, dated 10.8.2012. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that he was working as an Audit Officer in the office of the Accountant General, Chennai. Subsequently, he joined the Indian Institute of Technology as an Assistant Registrar on 03.11.1988. After his retirement from the IIT, he was given pension. He had commuted the entire pension and other benefits on 3.7.1989. After completion of 15 years, with effect from 3.7.2004, the commuted pension was restored. He had opened his pension pay account in the second respondent bank. The pay and allowance was revised by the Government of India with effect from 1.1.2006. Accordingly, his pension was revised and calculated as Rs.9331/-dearness allowance with effect from 1.9.2009. The arrears of pension was calculated and credited as per the orders of the Government of India. However, a sum of Rs.6252/-was started being deducted from his pension from 29.6.2011. The bank did not give any intimation. After making several representations and not getting satisfactory explanation, he has filed the present writ petition. Though it was stated that he has been paid excess amount of Rs.98,983/-, he had received an order only on 30.3.2012 from the Pay and Accounts Officer that his revised pension is Rs.6579/- with effect from 1.1.2006. No orders were issued relating to excess payment and that the bank cannot make any recovery. 4. As to how the writ petition is maintainable especially when the petitioner was working as the Central Government servant, the counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon a judgment of a division bench in W.P.No.22460 of 2011, dated 10.11.2011 in V.Mohanasundaram Vs. The Central Administrative Tribunal, rep by its Registrar, Chennai and others. 4. As to how the writ petition is maintainable especially when the petitioner was working as the Central Government servant, the counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon a judgment of a division bench in W.P.No.22460 of 2011, dated 10.11.2011 in V.Mohanasundaram Vs. The Central Administrative Tribunal, rep by its Registrar, Chennai and others. In that case, the Tribunal had refused to exercise the jurisdiction and that view was upheld by the division bench. 5. In the counter affidavit, it was stated that the petitioner had initially worked as an Audit Officer in the office of the Accountant General, Chennai. Subsequently, he became an Assistant Registrar of the IIT. After his retirement, he was receiving monthly pension disbursing through his savings bank account with the second respondent. The public sector undertakings absorbed pensioners receiving 1/3rd restored commuted portion of pension are eligible for dearness allowance on full pension, whereas the basic should be the actual 1/3rd restored amount only. For the purpose of calculation, the full pension for which dearness allowance payable was taken as a basic pension and the difference between the full pension and restored amount is taken as notional commutation recovery in the software. During the 5th Pay Commission, the full pension of the petitioner was Rs.4128/-, his notional commutation was Rs.2752/- and the 1/3 restored pension was Rs.1376/-. After 6th Pay commission, his full pension was Rs.9331/-, notional commutation was Rs.2752/-and the 1/3rd restored pension was Rs.6579/-. In the case of the petitioner, his notional commutation amount of Rs.2752/-was inadvertently omitted to be recovered due to mistake in calculation and he was paid in excess. The resultant excess payment came to Rs.1,20,999/-which was pointed out during the audit verification by the Auditor General in May, 2011. Therefore, it was decided to recover it in monthly installments from June, 2011 at the rate of Rs.3500/-per month. Since the bank is only acting as an agent for making payments, the relationship between the petitioner and the bank is one of contract. The petitioner cannot justify receiving the excess amount than what he is legally entitled to. 6. In the reply affidavit, it was alleged that there was no contract between the petitioner and the bank. The fact that he was personally given an explanation about the excess payment was denied. 7. However, the petitioner has not justified receiving of excess amount than what he is entitled to. 6. In the reply affidavit, it was alleged that there was no contract between the petitioner and the bank. The fact that he was personally given an explanation about the excess payment was denied. 7. However, the petitioner has not justified receiving of excess amount than what he is entitled to. In such circumstances, it is necessary to refer to a judgment of the Supreme Court in Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Haryana Vs. Israil Khan and others reported in (2010) 1 SCC 440, wherein the Supreme Court in paragraphs 9 and 10 had held as follows : 9. What is important is, recovery of excess payments from employees is refused only where the excess payment is made by the employer by applying a wrong method or principle for calculating the pay/allowance, or on a particular interpretation of the applicable rules which is subsequently found to be erroneous. But where the excess payment is made as a result of any misrepresentation, fraud or collusion, courts will not use their discretion to deny the right to recover the excess payment. 10...........There was no question of any wrong calculation or erroneous understanding of the legal position. Most of the employees who received similar relief have refunded or have agreed to refund the excess payment. Making any exception in the case of the respondents would also lead to discrimination." 8. Very recently, the Supreme Court in Chandi Prasad Uniyal and others Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others reported in 2012 STPL (Web) 437 SC had reviewed all previous cases including a three judge bench judgment of Syed Abdul Qadir's case and held in paragraphs 14 to 17 as follows : "14. We may point out that in Syed Abdul Qadir case such a direction was given keeping in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of that case since the beneficiaries had either retired or were on the verge of retirement and so as to avoid any hardship to them. 15. 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 on the part of the recipients of the excess pay, then only the amount paid could be recovered. 15. 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 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 on the verge of retirement or were occupying lower posts in the administrative hierarchy. 16. We are concerned with the excess payment of public money which is often described as tax payers money which belongs neither to the officers who have effected over-payment nor that of the recipients. We fail to see why the concept of fraud or misrepresentation is being brought in such situations. Question to be asked is whether excess money has been paid or not may be due to a bona fide mistake. Possibly, effecting excess payment of public money by 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 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 enrichment. 17. We are, therefore, of the considered view that except few instances pointed out in Syed Abdul Qadir case (supra) and in Col. B.J. Akkara (retd.) case (supra), the excess payment made due to wrong/irregular pay fixation can always be recovered." 9. In the light of the authoritative pronouncements of the Supreme Court and that the bank only being an agent of the Central Government in disbursing the pension, the petitioner cannot have any vested right to retain the excess amount paid due to wrong calculation made inadvertently. In the light of the above, the writ petition will stand dismissed. No costs. In the light of the authoritative pronouncements of the Supreme Court and that the bank only being an agent of the Central Government in disbursing the pension, the petitioner cannot have any vested right to retain the excess amount paid due to wrong calculation made inadvertently. In the light of the above, the writ petition will stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition stands closed.