Darshan Singh vs State Of Punjab & Ors.

KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (ORAL)

The instant writ petition is directed against the letter dated 17.12.2019, whereby respondent No.7 (hereinafter referred to as “Bank”) ordered recovery of an alleged excess payment amounting to ₹7,82,513/- from the family pension of the petitioner by effecting monthly deductions of ₹6,451/-.

Succinctly stated, the petitioner’s wife, late Smt. Charan Kaur, was appointed as a JBT Teacher (Group ‘C’ Service) in the Education Department, Government of Punjab, on 01.08.1979. She was subsequently promoted to the post of Head Teacher and retired from service on 31.03.2012 upon attaining the age of superannuation after rendering 32 years and 08 months of service. Pursuant to Pension Payment Order (PPO) dated 31.05.2012, her pensionary benefits were fixed as under:-

Unfortunately, the demise of Smt. Charan Kaur occurred on 12.04.2015, whereupon the petitioner, being eligible, was sanctioned family pension.

Thereafter, the Bank, upon examining the PPO, formed the view that with effect from the date of demise of the petitioner’s wife, the petitioner was entitled only to family pension, whereas regular pension had continued to be disbursed up to June, 2019. Consequently, the Bank concluded that an excess amount had been paid during the period from 12.04.2015 to June, 2019. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, which culminated in the issuance of the impugned letter dated 17.12.2019 directing recovery of the alleged excess payment.

Assailing the impugned letter, learned counsel for the petitioner has advanced two-fold submissions. Firstly, it is contended that Rule 6.18 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume II (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”), provides that where a Government employee dies after retirement, enhanced family pension shall be payable for a period of seven years from the date following the date of death or till the date on which the deceased Government employee would have attained the age of 65 years, whichever is earlier. It is, therefore, contended that neither the deceased employee nor the petitioner received any excess payment. Secondly, it is contended that the Bank has not assigned any reason whatsoever to deviate from the Rule (supra) and to commence deduction from the family pension of the petitioner.

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the Bank submits that since the petitioner’s wife did not die while in service, but after her retirement, Rule 6.18 of the Rules has no application to the facts of the present case. It is further submitted that the petitioner was duly served with a show cause notice and the impugned decision was taken only thereafter.

This Court has considered the rival submissions and has perused the record. In the considered opinion of this Court, the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner merit acceptance. A bare perusal of the impugned letter reveals that it neither adverts to nor considers the applicability of the relevant statutory provisions, particularly Rule 6.18 of the Rules. The decision to initiate recovery has been taken in a wholly cursory and mechanical manner without recording any reasons. An order which affects the rights of a person ought to contain reasons, which are conspicuously absent in the impugned letter. Therefore, the impugned letter, being devoid of any reasons, does not satisfy the test of legality.

Consequently, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned letter dated 17.12.2019 is hereby set aside. However, liberty is reserved in favour of the Bank to reconsider the matter afresh, in accordance with law, after affording the petitioner an adequate opportunity of hearing. While undertaking such exercise, the Bank shall also take into consideration Rule 6.18 of the Rules. Until any such fresh order is passed, no recovery shall be effected from the petitioner.