ORDER : 1. The petitioner has filed the instant under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following relief (S) :- “a. This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or suitable direction tot he respondents for quashing the impugned recovery of Rs.7,91,560/- issued by the respondent No.3. b. This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/direction to the respondent No.3 for grant of consequential reliefs of deductions. c. Any other relief as the Hon’ble Court may be deemed fit and proper with cost of petition.” 2. Brief facts of the case, as projected by the petitioner, are that the petitioner's husband late Shankar Singh Thakur was working on the post of Assistant Teacher at Govt. Middle School, Arang and he died in harness on 23/03/2005 leaving behind the petitioner and 7 daughters namely Savitri Singh 30 years, Sangita Singh 27 years, Vijeta Singh 23 years, Durgeshwari Singh 21 years, Subhashini Singh 20 years, Jyoti Singh 18 years & Pooja Singh 15 years. After the death of petitioner’s husband, his elder daughter namely Savitri Singh got the compassionate appointment on the post of Shiksha Karmi - Grade – III and now she has been married. The petitioner received the retiral benefits/dues (Annexure P/1) in accordance with the rules and is getting family pension from 2005. According to the petitioner, the Respondent No.3 orally informed the petitioner in the month of November, 2017 that by mistake the petitioner is being given excess pension than the fixed pension, therefore, the Respondent No. 03 has started to deduct the pension Rs.4,000/- against the total recoverable amount of Rs.7,91,560/- without any prior letter/notice. The petitioner submitted a letter to the Senior Treasury Officer, District Raipur requesting that she is not getting pension since three months. The Respondent No. 03 has informed the petitioner that in place of the petitioner, some other woman namely Suhana is operating her account and her name is missing, however, the amount of pension was being deposited in the account of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, she did not get any pension from the month of November, 2017 to January, 2018 and in the month of February, March, April, 2018 & May, 2018, she received Rs.10,163/- and thereafter, Respondent No. 03 has started deducting Rs.4,000/- per month from the aforesaid amount. According to the petitioner, she did not get any pension from the month of November, 2017 to January, 2018 and in the month of February, March, April, 2018 & May, 2018, she received Rs.10,163/- and thereafter, Respondent No. 03 has started deducting Rs.4,000/- per month from the aforesaid amount. Now the petitioner is only getting pension of Rs.6,163/- after deduction of Rs. 4,000/-. The petitioner made complaint (Annexure P/2) to the Respondent No. 02 towards excess payment of pension and requested not to recover the excess payment on the ground that she is not in a position to pay the excess amount and the excess payment was made to her by mistake of the Respondent No. 03. The Respondent No. 02 has forwarded the application of the petitioner by a letter, dated 12/02/2018 (Annexure P/3). Despite the request of the petitioner to provide the order of recovery, the same has not been provided to her and only a copy of chart (Annexure P/4) showing calculation of the recovery amount has been supplied. The petitioner is an illiterate person and she is looking after 06 daughters only on the basis of Family Pension. Therefore, the petitioner is not in a position to pay the excess amount Rs.7,91,560/- to the Respondent No. 03. If the Respondent No. 03 is allowed to deduct the amount of Rs.4,000/- from the petitioner, the petitioner would suffer irreparable loss and she will face difficulty in maintaining her big family. Hence, this petition by the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of Respondent No.3 is arbitrary and contrary to the law and provisions, hence, the recovery from family pension is bad in law. The excess payment in pension is on the fault of Respondent No.3 and from the very beginning the petitioner was getting actual pension, therefore, the recovery from pension is arbitrary, illegal and the same is liable to be quashed. 4. Learned counsel further submits that the recovery of Rs.7,91,560/- towards excess payment is arbitrary and contrary action and the petitioner is not at all responsible for the such excess amount. The petitioner is poor, illiterate widow and she is maintaining her a big family from the meager amount of family pension. In fact, the petitioner is entitled to get family pension as granted by the Respondent No.2, therefore, the deduction is illegal. The petitioner is poor, illiterate widow and she is maintaining her a big family from the meager amount of family pension. In fact, the petitioner is entitled to get family pension as granted by the Respondent No.2, therefore, the deduction is illegal. Learned counsel also submits that after deduction of Rs.4,000/- from the family pension, the petition at present is getting Rs.6,163/-, which is without complying the provision of Pension Rules and principle of the natural justice. Therefore, the respondent authorities may be directed to stop the recovery of Rs.7,91,560/- from the petitioner. 5. Learned State counsel opposed the prayer of the petitioner and submits that the recovery proceeding is in accordance with law. 6. Learned counsel for Respondent No.3 strongly opposed the prayer of the petitioner and submits that at the time of family pension, the petitioner has given an undertaking in her declaration letter (Annexure R-3/1) that she will be agreed to recover the excess amount, if the same has been paid to her and, as such, the instant petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of principles of estoppel. 7. Learned counsel further submits that the husband of the petitioner was working as Assistant Teacher in the Education Department and died on 23.03.2005. On the death of deceased employee, the Treasurer of the Pension Department prepared and issued the Pension Payment Order (PPO) (Annexure R-3/2), by which the family pension for the period of 24.03.2005 to 23.03.2012 as Rs. 3175/-+ DA w.e.f. 24.03.2012 was sanction and the same has been fixed as Rs.1905/- basic + DA. Subsequently, the amount of pension of Rs.3,175/- has been revised as Rs.7,176/- w.e.f. 01.08.2009 till 23.03.2012. Likewise, the pension amount of Rs.1,905/- of the petitioner has been revised on the basis of 6th Pay Commission as Rs.4,306/- w.e.f. 24.03.2012 (vide letter dated 01.03.2018 issued by the District Treasurer, Raipur (vide Annexure R-3/6)]. Learned counsel further submits that initially the amount of pension on the basis of PPO/Calculation Sheet (Annexure R/3-3) was being paid by the Office of Treasury till June, 2005 in the account of the petitioner and thereafter, the Pension Department of the Bank situated at Mumbai is paying amount of pension to the account of the petitioner regularly since July, 2005 till date. In the year 2018, the petitioner had submitted an application for grant of revised pension as per 6th Pay Commission and after recalculation of the family pension amount of the petitioner, it is revealed that the excess amount has been deposited in the account of the petitioner since October, 2005 till December, 2017 on the basis of wrong fixation (Annexure R-3/4) of basic and dearness allowance (DA) i.e. total excess amount of Rs.7,91,560/- has been paid to the petitioner. 8. Learned counsel also submits that from January, 2018 the respondent has rectified its mistake and pension is being paid to the petitioner on the basis of actual basic and dearness allowance to the petitioner till date. After recalculation of the family pension, the same has been forwarded to the concerned Pension Department of the Bank and vide e-mail dated 25.02.2018 (Annexure R/3-5), advised the concerned Branch of Dena Bank to provide the calculation sheet to the petitioner and advised her to deposit the amount of excess payment (recovery amount). Vide memo dated 01.03.2018 (Annexure R/3-6), the Office of Senior Treasury Officer has also advised the Bank to proceed as per rules in respect of adjustment of the excess payment. Accordingly, the Bank had proceeded to recover the excess amount by installment i.e. by way of deducting 40% of the actual amount of pension (i.e. amount of Rs.4,000/- recovered from the family pension per month). It is further submitted that, memo dated 01.03.2018 issued by the Office of Senior Treasury Officer on the basis of which the recovery proceeding has been started, has not been challenged by the petitioner. However, by virtue of the interim order passed by this Hon'ble Court on 19.09.2018, the recovery has been stopped and the actual amount of family pension which the petitioner is legally entitled, is being paid to her regularly without any deduction. There is no dispute about excess payment made to the petitioner. Since the excess amount which has been paid to the petitioner, is a public money, the respondent Bank has rightly proceeded to recover the amount by way of installment i.e. deduction of 40% (Rs.4,000/-) from family pension, in view of the declaration given by the petitioner with regard to recovery of excess payment at the time of receiving the family pension. 9. 9. Learned counsel also submits that it is settled law that if the excess payment has been made to the concerned person/employee on the basis of wrong fixation or by mistake, it can be rectified or recovered from the concerned person, particularly when the concerned person/employee has given undertaking in respect of recovery on excess payment. To buttress his submission, learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of High Court of Punjab & Haryana Vs. Jagdev Singh reported in 2016 (150) FLR 990 (SC). 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 11. It is not disputed in this case that the petitioner is getting family pension on account of death of her husband who was working in the Education Department and it is also not disputed by the petitioner that at the time of fixation of family pension, some miscalculation/mistake was done. 12. Grievance of the petitioner is that she is poor, illiterate lady and looking after big family which is wholly dependent upon the family pension and if the recovery is made from her, she would suffer a lot and would not be in a position to meet out the day-to-day family exigencies by this meager amount. 13. It transpires from the record that the petitioner herself has given a declaration (Annexure R-3/1) duly signed by her certifying that in case of excess payment of government money in pension fixation, she will agree to recover the excess payment from the pension. According to the calculation sheet, now the respondent/Bank is deducting 4,000/- (40% of family pension) from the petitioner’s pension and she is getting Rs.6,163/- as pension after deduction, which is in view of present market index/inflation, is on lower side to meet out the day-to-day exigencies of a family. Therefore, in view of the declaration (Annexure R-3/1) of the petitioner, the recovery of excess amount cannot be termed to be illegal, however, looking to the present market index/inflation, respondent authorities are directed to deduct/recover 20% of the family pension from the petitioner till recovery of excess amount of Rs.7,91,560/- so that the petitioner may maintain her family. 14. Accordingly, the petition is partly allowed to the extent indicated herein above.