JUDGMENT : ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, J. 1. Heard Mr. Ajay Shrivastava, learned counsel, appearing for the appellant. Also heard Ms. Astha Shukla, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the respondent No. 1 as well as Mr. Anand Shukla, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent No. 2. 2. Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 05.08.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP (S) No. 3836/2021, the appellant/ writ petitioner has preferred this appeal. 3. Case of the appellant, as projected in the writ petition, is that the husband of the appellant was working as an Upper Division Teacher and he died-in-harness on 07.01.2013. On his death, the appellant started getting family pension. Allegation is made in the writ petition that without any order and without any show cause notice, the pension amount was reduced and recovery at the rate of Rs. 9,896/- per month was started from June, 2021. On the basis of an application filed under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short the RTI Act), an endorsement was made to the appellant with a calculation-sheet that excess payment of Rs. 2,05,930/- was made to the appellant and accordingly, recovery of excess pension is being made at the rate of Rs. 9,896/- per month. It is also alleged that the respondent No. 2-Bank had “hold the account” as a result of which the appellant was unable to withdraw any amount from her account. 4. It is seen from the calculation-sheet annexed with the writ petition that the same is issued by the Branch Manager of Central Bank of India, Saraipali Branch, who is arrayed as respondent No. 2. 5. The writ petition was filed on 08.07.2021. The case was listed on 05.08.2021 for orders on default. However, ignoring the defaults pointed out by the Registry, the matter was taken up for consideration and disposal, and as noticed above, the same was disposed of on the said date. No return was filed in the writ petition and it would appear that the order was passed on the basis of oral submissions on behalf of the learned counsel for the respondents, more particularly, respondent No. 2. 6. A perusal of the facts recited by the learned Single Judge, which is not disputed in the appeal, would go to show that the appellant was erroneously paid the pension amount of Rs. 6. A perusal of the facts recited by the learned Single Judge, which is not disputed in the appeal, would go to show that the appellant was erroneously paid the pension amount of Rs. 29,692/- per month and that the aforesaid amount was payable only upto January 2020 and thereafter, the family pension payable was Rs. 17,815/- per month but the amount of Rs. 29,692/- was continued to be paid to the appellant upto May, 2021 when the mistake was detected. It was also observed that pursuant to the erroneous fixation of pension which was detected, the process for recovery of an amount of Rs. 2,05,930/- was started and accordingly, the Bank had started to recover the amount of Rs.9,896/- per month from the family pension of the appellant. 7. The learned Single Judge, in the impugned order, noted that the petitioner was not granted any opportunity of hearing before the rectification was carried out by the respondent-Bank and that no order of recovery was passed by the respondent-Bank. The learned Single Judge relied on a decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), (2015) 4 SCC 334 , and on consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, came to the conclusion that the excess payment was made for the preceding 15 months before recovery action was initiated and there is no challenge that she is entitled to pension of Rs. 29,692/- per month and on considering as above, it was opined that the recovery sought to be made by the respondent-Bank cannot be said to be either iniquitous or arbitrary. However, it was observed that the quantum of recovery sought to be made i.e. Rs. 9,896/- per month is harsh and accordingly, it was ordered that an amount of Rs. 5,000/- per month may be recovered to recover the entire excess amount of Rs. 2,05,930/-. Direction was also issued to the respondent-Bank to give the complete details of the actual pension that the appellant is entitled to and the period of excess pension, which has been received and on receipt of the said intimation, liberty was reserved to the appellant to challenge the same. 8. A review petition, being REVP No. 137/2021 was filed seeking review of the order dated 05.08.2021, which was dismissed by order dated 29.10.2021. 9. 8. A review petition, being REVP No. 137/2021 was filed seeking review of the order dated 05.08.2021, which was dismissed by order dated 29.10.2021. 9. While issuing notice on this appeal on 01.02.2022, the order of the learned Single Judge was suspended and it was ordered that no recovery shall be effected by the respondents from the appellant on the ground that excess amount towards pension was paid by the Bank, till the next date fixed i.e. 28.03.2022. Thereafter, the interim order was continued from time to time. 10. In the appeal, it is pleaded that the writ petitioner is suffering from blood cancer since 2014 and an amount of Rs. 12 Lacs have been spent on her treatment which is still continuing. The said fact, however, was not pleaded in the writ petition. It is also pleaded that the issue is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra). 11. Though no permission was obtained, the respondent No. 2 has filed return. There is no denial of the averment made by the appellant that she is suffering from blood cancer since 2014. It is stated that in terms of the order of the learned Single Judge, a calculation-sheet is provided to the appellant indicating her entitlement and the excess payment made to her. 12. During the course of submission, Mr. Ajay Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the husband of the appellant was a Grade-III employee and placing reliance on the decision rendered in Rafiq Masih (supra), he contends that the learned Single Judge was in error in directing recovery of the excess payment amount, though at a lower rate. He submits that in the attending facts and circumstances, the learned Single Judge ought to have held that clause (i) and (v) of Rafiq Masih (supra), is squarely applicable in the case of the appellant. He has also placed reliance on a judgment rendered by this Court on 16.12.2021 in W.A. No. 46/2019 (Branch Manager, Allahabad Bank vs. Smt. Sangita Mishra and Another), to contend that in similar circumstances, appeal preferred by the Bank against the order of the learned Single Judge, was dismissed. 13. Ms. Astha Shukla, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the respondent No. 1 and Mr. 13. Ms. Astha Shukla, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the respondent No. 1 and Mr. Anand Shukla, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent No. 2 do not dispute that the husband of the appellant was a Grade-III employee. Mr. Shukla places reliance on the reasoning cited by the learned Single Judge for dismissal of the appeal. 14. That the husband of the appellant was working in a Grade-III post is, thus, not in dispute. Though not pleaded in the writ petition, having regard to the fact that no dispute was raised by the respondent-Bank with regard to the plea taken in the writ appeal by the appellant that she is suffering from blood cancer since 2014 and is under treatment, the same has to be taken to be not disputed. 15. In Rafiq Masih (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as follows: “18. It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship, which would govern employees on the issue of recovery, where payments have mistakenly been made by the employer, in excess of their entitlement. Be that as it may, based on the decisions referred to herein above, we may, as a ready reference, summarise the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law: (i) Recovery from employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV service (or Group ‘C’ and Group ‘D’ service). (ii) Recovery from retired employees, or employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery. (iii) Recovery from employees, when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery is issued. (iv) Recovery in cases where an employee has wrongfully been required to discharge duties of a higher post and has been paid accordingly, even though he should have rightfully been required to work against an inferior post. (v) In any other case, where the Court arrives at the conclusion, that 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.” 16. A perusal of the order passed in Sangita Mishra (supra) would go to show that the pension amount was paid at the rate of Rs. 10,385/- per month upto 31.08.2018, though from 16.06.2015, the basic payment ought to have been reduced to Rs. 6,231/-. A perusal of the order passed in Sangita Mishra (supra) would go to show that the pension amount was paid at the rate of Rs. 10,385/- per month upto 31.08.2018, though from 16.06.2015, the basic payment ought to have been reduced to Rs. 6,231/-. It would appear from the aforesaid judgment that an undertaking given by the petitioner therein, was sought to be pressed into service for initiating recovery process. It was observed by the learned Division Bench that the undertaking produced by the Bank was not readable and that if the Bank wanted to rely on the undertaking given, least to be expected is that the same is readable and comprehensible and accordingly, it was observed that the appellant cannot act upon such document for the purpose of recovery of the excess amount. The Division Bench, while taking note of the guideline of the Reserve Bank of India dated 17.03.2016, also observed that such guideline has to be considered in the light of the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court with regard to permissibility or otherwise of recovery of amount from the employees. 17. In the conspectus of the facts, when the husband of the writ petitioner therein was un-disputably in Class-III service, the proposition No. (i) of paragraph 18 of Rafiq Masih (supra) was relied upon while dismissing the appeal preferred by the Bank. 18. In the present case, there is no undertaking as produced by the respondent-Bank in Sangita Mishra (supra). 19. In the facts and circumstances of the case as stated herein above, we are of the opinion that proposition (i) and (v) of paragraph 18 of the decision in Rafiq Masih (supra) would be attracted. 20. In that view of the matter, we set aside the order dated 05.08.2021 of the learned Single Judge and restrain the respondent-Bank from recovery of excess payment made to the appellant. 21. The writ appeal stands allowed. No cost.