D. Janamma vs The Employees Provident Fund Commissioner

K. Vinod Chandran, J.—The petitioner and her daughter were regularly receiving the monthly pension, which was stopped on December, 2011. On enquiry, the petitioner was told that there was some mistake in computation and that the pension was paid in excess, over and above, what is legally due to the petitioner as family pension. On enquiry with the 2nd respondent Bank the petitioner was informed that the first respondent had inhibited operation of the account of the petitioner as per Ext. R1(a). Ext. R1(a) also directed that the amounts credited in the account should be re-transferred to the 1st respondent, since refund of the excess amount paid had to be made from the petitioner.

It is submitted by the learned Standing Counsel for the Provident Fund Organisation that despite Ext. R1(a), Provident Fund Organisation has not effected refund of the amounts but had merely interdicted operation of the account. It was in such circumstances, that the petitioner has approached this Court challenging Ext. P5 communication issued in pursuance to her request wherein it was directed that the excess amounts paid coming to Rs. 252361/- has to be refunded and only then, the pension account of the petitioner maintained with the 2nd respondent would be allowed to be operated.

The question of refund is clearly covered by a Division Bench decision of this Court in K. Saraswathi Vs. General Manager, Southern Railway and Others, . Therein also, a widow of an employee of the Southern Railway was threatened with refund of pension paid, which was said to be over-drawl of legally due amounts; which were stated to have been disbursed for more than 4 1/2 years. The Tribunal had directed refund of the amounts which was paid in excess of what was legally due. This Court found that the family pension is basically a social security measure intended to give effect to the concept of social welfare state. Considering the status of the petitioner therein, and also the fact that the excess disbursement was not due to any fault of the pensioner, this Court directed that no refund of amounts could be granted.

In the present case also, the pension granted from the year 1997 was a negligible amount of Rs. 2198/- with which the petitioner would have eked out a living along with her daughter. The excess drawl again was not on the fault of the petitioner or on any misrepresentation made by petitioners, but was only a computation mistake committed by the 1st respondent. The principle extracted by the Division Bench, from the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court reported in Col. (Retd.) B.J. Akkara Vs. The Govt. of India and Others, applied on all fours. The widow of the pensioner would have spend the pension paid to her to sustain her family''s existence and going by the amount drawn it could have been only a basic sustenance not resulting in any amassment of wealth. The upkeep of the family would have consumed the entire amount and an order of refund from the future pension would further taper down an already reduced pension.

Taking note all the above circumstances as also the binding precedent this Court is of the opinion that no refund can be made. Ext. P5 would stand set aside. However, with respect to the pension payable prospective to December 2011 the 1st respondent shall compute the same and issue an order showing the arrears payable within three weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The arrears payable shall carry interest @ 6% leviable from the respective dates of payment of monthly pension which also shall be computed and payment made to the account of the petitioner, maintained with the 2nd respondent, within a period of two months thereafter. The levy of interest is ordered only in the circumstance of the improper withholding of pension. If such payment is not effected as directed herein, the arrears, shall carry interest @ 10% from the respective months till payment. The petitioner shall be permitted to operate the account maintained with the 2nd respondent immediately.

Writ petition allowed with the above directions, leaving the parties to suffer their costs.