Pension Is Fundamental Right, No Authority Can Deduct It Without Order Of Court | पेंशन आपका मौलिक अधिकार है

Bombay high court order providing security of pension amount, and direction to Banks for assisting senior citizen in pension withdrawals. This order is landmark judgment upholds the care, respect, dignity of senior citizen by directing banks to provide assistance and security in withdrawals. 

In this topic

Pension is fundamental right; No authority can deduct it without order of Court – (Bombay High Court). This order is landmark judgement upholding the concern and care for senior citizen by directing the security of amount in account as well as directing the banks for an easy, assistive and secure methods for withdrawals from pension accounts. This order is landmark judgment upholds the care, respect, dignity of senior citizen by directing banks to provide assistance and security in withdrawals.



Basic Concept  

  1. Senior citizen (pensioners) being in vulnerable stage of life has great dependence on the security of pension for their sustenance.
  2. The banks have been unrealizing in their acts and deeds with various actions :
    1.  Banks have often clearly violated the constitution’s principle that the pension payable to the employees upon superannuation is a ‘property’ under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and it constitutes a fundamental right to livelihood under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.   

While passing the landmark judgement, the hon’ble court has found that unlawful withholding the pension amount, illegal recovery of paid pension amount were grave offence conducted by State Bank of India against the petitioner, which was clear violation of the Article 300 & Article 21 .

  1. Article 46 therein requires the State to promote with special care the economic interests of the weaker sections of the people.
    1. Senior citizen (pensioners) being a weaker section of society, have been not cared with service model,  assistance and security in banking services by banks .In the same judgement, the court has given direction to all banks for creating mechanisms of special cares to pensioners, unless they do is the clear violation of Article 46.



The Case Summary   

  1.   The case was filed in NAGPUR Bench of HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY.  Petitioner & respondent list are given below:



Shri Naini Gopal S/o Dhirendra Mohan Roy,

Aged About 85 Years,

Occupation – Pensioner,

Respondent 1

The Union Of India , Ministry of Defence

Respondent 2

General Manager, STATE BANK OF INDIA

Respondent 3

General Manager  Ordnance Factory Board

Judges Bench


Judgement Decreed By


Judgement Pronounced on

20th Aug’20






Petitioner, Mr. Naini Gopal Sharma retired as asst. foreman from the employment of Ordnance Factory Board, on 1-10-94. The pension details and pension amount dispute with respondent are listed below:






Last drawn basic salary of petitioner


Basic pension fixed on 1-10-94


Consequent increase in pension & dearness allowance by 5th, 6th & 7th Pay commission , the basic pension amounted to


In August 2019, the basic pension was reduced  (with effect from


from Rs.25,634/- to Rs.25,250/-

Pension Processing Centre of the State Bank of India directed

recovery of amount from pensioner


Recovery deduction s in instalments pension with effect from 1-8-2019

Rs.11,400/-, i.e. 1/3rd of the monthly pension


Information of this deduction or consent to petitioner


Pensioner ( Petitioner ) pension account details

State Bank of India, Medical College Area, Branch Nagpur, where the

petitioner holds the pension account No.10387387888,




The petitioner filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 on 1-9-2019 to know the reason for deduction and details as to the revision of pension during the period 2015-16 and 2016-17.


In response to this application, the petitioner received the reply on 20-9-2019 from the respondent No.3 informing that there was excess payment of pension of Rs.3, 69,035/- to the petitioner, which was discovered after making the revised calculations.

The petitioner approached the Court to challenge the decision and get the pension restored

 The court became anxious to know whether the State Bank of India has acted on its own or under direction of the employer, for stopping the pension and imposing the recovery on the pensioner.  The court was under impression that the State Bank of India branch has acted on recovery under the instruction of employer.

Court’s Discovery

The court discovered that the SBI branch is also doing following illegal actions:

  1. Not allowing petitioner to withdraw amount from the pension account
  2. The bank/ branch had acted without any authority

Reply of  , Ordnance Factory Board, replied via Affidavit

The employer has not issued any order for recovery of any amount from pensioner. 

Reply of , Accounts Officer , Ordnance Factory Board

The pension at the rate of

Rs.26,000/- has been correctly notified

Reply of State Bank of India

Bank paid monthly Rs.9974.00 erroneously and further  erroneously calculated pension which comes to Rs.25,634.00 which was being paid, and on having noticed this fact, the Bank has fixed the Pension at Rs.25,250.00


            Court noticed these actions     of the bank

  • Bank had reduced the pension payable to petitioner from Rs. 9974/- to  Rs. 9102/- by its own decision, as it said that amount of 872/- was paid in excess to petitioner
  • Bank had already recovered 3,26,045/- amount from the petitioner’s pension account
  • Bank has proposed to recover the balance 40,042/- more from the pensioner’s account.

           Court’s Observations

  • Bank is a trustee of the account of pensioners, has no authority in the eyes of law to dispute the entitlement of pension payable to the employees, other than the employees of the Bank.
  • Tampering of record to enforce recovery is the ‘Breach of Trust’
  • The bank has no authority to recover from the pension account, even if the technical error has caused the calculation of wrong amount
  • The bank directly enforced the recovery from the petitioner account, without doing re-verification and clarification correspondence with the employer.
  • The entire action of the bank is arbitrary, unreasonable, and unauthorized and in flagrant violation of natural justice
  • The petitioner being of 85 years of age, had the liability of his mentally disabled daughter of 45 years of age, who is also under costly medication.
  • The bank had not shown any sensitivity to the old age person and the medically ill dependants, instead it has shown arrogance in driving the petitioner to pillar and post for knowing the reason of deductions.

     Court’s Action

  • Bank to refund the amount of Rs.3,26,045/- to the petitioner by crediting it in his pension account with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of deduction till the date of crediting such amount in the account of the petitioner
  • Bank is restrained from recovering 42,042/-
  • Bank is required to pay 50,000/- to petitioner towards harassment & mental agony within 8 days. If this this not paid within 8 days, bank will be liable to pay 1000/- per day each delay







Legal Definitions from the Judgement

 >> Banks are reminded that pension payable on superannuation is ‘property’ under ARTICLE 300 A of the Constitution of India It Constitute fundamental right to livelihood under ARTICLE 21 of the CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

>> Article 46 therein requires that State Article 46 therein requires the State to promote with special care the economic interests of the weaker sections of the people.

>> It is the State policy to create an obligation upon the State to enact suitable laws, making the provisions to recognize a right of public assistance, to promote economic interests, to protect the life and property of senior citizens, to treat them with respect and dignity and to give wide publicity to it.


Related Topics