AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Mr. E. Subramanyam, learned counsel representing Mr. Srinivas Polavarapu, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. V.T. Kalyan, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Mrs. B.L. Prasuna, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.3 and 4.
This writ petition is filed to declare the action of respondents in discontinuing the family pension under Freedom Fighters Pension Scheme without following due process of law as illegal, and for a consequential direction to the respondents to pay the family pension under Freedom Fighters Pension Scheme along with accrued arrears to the petitioners.
FACTS:
i) The petitioner’s husband, late S. Ramachander Rao was a freedom fighter. He is entitled for pension under Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension (SSSP) Scheme, 1980 and, therefore, pension was granted to him under the aforesaid Scheme during his life time. He died in the year 1994.
ii) The petitioner being the widow of the freedom fighter is entitled for pension under the aforesaid SSSP Scheme, 1980. Therefore, on satisfying the eligibility of the petitioner and also on verification of the documents, the respondents have sanctioned pension to the petitioner under the aforesaid Scheme, 1980 from 1994 onwards vide Freedom Fighters’ Reference No.05/S-001075. The pension amount is being regularly credited to the petitioner’s account bearing No.52142540357 in State Bank of India, Kohir Branch, Sangareddy District (earlier State Bank of Hyderabad).
iii) The petitioner’s pension was stopped in the year 2014 without any notice and without assigning any reasons. Despite several requests, the respondents have not paid her pension. She got issued a legal notice on 07.12.2015. There is no response from the respondents. Therefore, she had filed a writ petition vide W.P. No.8125 of 2016 seeking a direction to the respondents to pay pension continuously to the petitioner under the aforesaid SSSP Scheme, 1980 and also the arrears.
iv) According to the petitioner, respondent No.2 filed counter in the said writ petition stating that they have not issued any orders to the Bank requesting them to stop the pension to the petitioner and it is the Bank which had stopped the pension. Even, respondent No.3 bank also agreed to release pension along with arrears to the petitioner. Therefore, considering the said facts, the petitioner withdrew the aforesaid writ petition. Thereafter, the bank started to pay pension to the petitioner and accordingly paid till August, 2020.
v) Again, from September, 2020 onwards, the respondents stopped paying pension to the petitioner without issuing any notice and without following due procedure laid down under law. Vide letters dated 02.06.2022 and 21.07.2022, respondent No.2 directed respondent No.3 to furnish certain information and clarification. On the request of respondent No.2, the petitioner had submitted certain information and also the explanation dated 11.07.2022. In the said letter dated 11.07.2022, the petitioner has specifically mentioned that even the pension order and other documents relating to the pension were destroyed in a fire accident. Even then, the respondents did not consider the same and did not pay the pension to the petitioner from September, 2020 onwards. Therefore, the present writ petition.
CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENT Nos.1 & 2:
i) According to respondent Nos.1 and 2, the family pension of the petitioner was stopped by respondent No.3 bank due to non-availability of the original PPO (Pension Payment Order). As per paragraph No.8.1.1 of the guidelines dated 06.08.2014, the moment Bank comes to know that the Disburser portion of a PPO is lost, it should immediately stop the payment of pension and take action against the concerned offers. As per paragraph No.8.1.3 (iii) of the said guidelines, in case both the halves of a PPO are lost after the commencement of the pension (where a few months/years pension has already been paid), then the bank must submit a detailed report along with the reasons of such loss and the efforts made by the bank to locate the disburser’s portion to the Ministry along with a certificate that the pensioner is indeed a genuine pensioner. The Ministry shall then in consultation with CPAO, PAO and concerned AG, reconsider the case as a fresh and issue a fresh sanction letter followed by a new PPO in which it will also be clarified whether arrears (if any) shall be payable or not.
ii) According to the aforesaid guidelines, dated 06.08.2014, the family pension was stopped by respondent No.4 bank and respondent No.2 has addressed letters dated 02.06.2022, 21.07.2022 and 20.09.2022 to the bank and requested the petitioner for issuance of a fresh sanction order and fresh PPO as per the aforesaid guidelines. The said documents are still awaited from the bank and the petitioners. Instead of submitting the required documents/information, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. Thus, according to respondent No.2, as soon as the required documents/information is received from the bank and the petitioner, the claim will be processed as per the provisions of the Scheme.
CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENT Nos.3 & 4:
i) According to the respondents bank, the file was migrated from erstwhile State Bank of Hyderabad and the pension was being paid by them initially.
ii) During the data purification exercise, it was observed that the disburser’s portion of the PPO was not traceable. Hence, the pension was suspended on 09.09.2020. They have paid pension to the petitioner till August, 2020. Respondent No.3 has communicated the same to the petitioner as well as respondent No.4 bank. Respondent No.3 requested the petitioner through respondent No.4 to submit relevant documents to process further to obtain duplicate PPO. They have also requested the petitioner to submit pensioner’s portion of PPO. The petitioner failed to submit the said documents to respondent No.4. She has confirmed that her portion of PPO has also misplaced.
iii) On receipt of the said documents from the petitioner, respondent No.3 had sent all relevant documents including loss certificate for issue of duplicate PPO to respondent No.2 vide letter dated 11.05.2022. 12 digit PPO number was not allotted to the petitioner.
iv) On 21.07.2022, respondent No.3 had received a letter from respondent No.2 and the same was replied on 19.08.2022 along with information received and as sought by respondent No.2. On 30.10.2022, again respondent No.3 informed respondent NO.4 regarding the petitioner’s case and requested them to send filled application along with required Annexures/documents in four (04) sets in original, to enable them to forward the same to respondent No.2 and a copy of the same was sent to the petitioner.
v) Respondent No.3 has been in constant touch with the petitioner on phone and requested her to clarify the position with supporting evidence. Respondent No.3 did not receive any co-operation from the petitioner and her family members. Respondent No.3 bank is also in touch with respondent Nos.2 and 4. Respondent No.3 did not receive documents for onward transmission to respondent No.2.
vi) Respondent No.3 bank receives directives for disbursement of pensions from respondent No.2 and they are bound to follow the same as per guideline No.9.1.6 and as per which stoppage of pension by Banks can be done when the bank on any suspicion feels that the payment of pension needs investigation. Hence, respondent No.3 stopped the pension to the petitioner. As and when it receives documents in proper format from the petitioner, they will send the same to respondent No.2.
ANALYSIS AND FINDING OF THE COURT:
i) In view of the aforesaid rival submissions, it is relevant to note that the Central Government had announced the aforesaid SSSP Scheme, 1980 to assist and honour the needy and acknowledge the valuable sacrifices made by the Freedom Fighters. It is a Scheme introduced by the Government of India and not a Statute. Certain Clauses of the Scheme were challenged and the same was upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M.L. Bhandari v. Union of India AIR 1993 SC 2127, wherein the Apex Court held that “As regards the sufficiency of the proof, the Scheme itself mentions the documents which are required to be produced before the Government. It is not possible for this Court to scrutinize the documents which according to the petitioners, they had produced in support of their claim and pronounce upon their genuineness. It is the function of the Government to do so. We would, therefore, direct accordingly. The pension should, of course, be sanctioned only after the required proof is produced.”
ii) According to respondent No.2, they have received letter dated 11.05.2022 of respondent No.3 stating that it had stopped pension to the petitioner owing to loss of both portions of PPO. Handling of the case by the bank has been viewed seriously by respondentNo.2. Bank has simply forwarded an application dated 16.04.2022 from the Branch Manager, along with some documents wherein it is mentioned that the petitioner is not receiving pension due to non-availability of PPO with her. The Bank failed to report that even the bank is not in possession of the Disburser portion of PPO, Bank also did not provide any background information of the case of the petitioner i.e., whether her pension account is active, last pension paid etc. Since her name was mentioned in the 71 pensioner list i.e., similar ongoing matter. There may have been confusion examining her case owing to incomplete representation of facts by the bank. Therefore, respondent No.2 requested respondent No.3 bank to furnish point-wise clarification on the points mentioned therein. In the said letter, it is specifically mentioned that it is highly questionable on the bank as to how it was disbursing pension to the pensioners in the absence of PPO and why the loss of PPO was not reported to the Ministry immediately. With the said information, respondent No.2 requested the bank to look into the matter and furnish clarification on points-wise, latest by 15.06.2022. Respondent No.2 has also requested respondent No.3 to submit certain documents mentioned therein and also the action taken report by 15.06.2022. Vide letter dated 21.07.2022, respondent No.2 had informed respondent No.3 bank to furnish the data /information.
iii) The aforesaid facts would reveal that there is no dispute that the husband of the petitioner i.e., S. Ramachander Rao was a freedom fighter and pension was granted to him under SSSP Scheme, 1980. He died in the year 1994 and, thereafter, they have paid pension to the petitioner being the widow of the freedom fighter up to 2004. In 2014, they had stopped paying pension to the petitioner without assigning any reasons. She had filed the aforesaid W.P. No.8125 of 2016 seeking a direction to the respondents to pay pension along with arrears. In the said writ petition, respondent No.2 had filed counter stating that they have not issued any proceedings requesting respondent No.3 bank to stop the pension. Even, respondent No.3 had also informed that they are going to release pension. Therefore, she withdrew the said writ petition. Thereafter, pension was paid to the petitioner herein including arrears till August, 2020. Again, respondent Nos.3 and 4 stopped paying pension to the petitioner from September, 2020 onwards.
iv) According to respondent No.3, the file was migrated from erstwhile State Bank of Hyderabad and the pension was being paid by them initially. During the data purification exercise, it was observed that the disburser’s portion of the PPO was not traceable. Therefore, they have suspended the pension of the petitioner on 09.09.2020.
v) It is relevant to note that vide letter dated 02.06.2022, respondent No.2 had taken the aforesaid action of respondent No.3 bank seriously. As per the guidelines, Bank has to inform about the non-tracing of PPO to respondent No.2 which respondent No.3 did not do. In the said letter, it is also specifically mentioned that if PPO was not available, when it was lost and why it was not reported to the Ministry. Even in the letter dated 21.07.2022, respondent No.2 has informed that even after repeated requests by the Ministry, the bank has not furnished satisfactory clarification/information on certain issues which are mentioned therein, and other documents, such as Annexure VA, Original Family Details Certificate, four sets of ID, last pension payment certificate etc. that were requested vide para No.7 of its letter dated 2.06.2022 were also not furnished. Thus, respondent No.2 had requested respondent No.3 bank to furnish the same at the earliest.
vi) It is relevant to note that vide letter dated 11.07.2022, the petitioner has informed respondent Nos.2 to 5 that PPO and other related documents with regard to the pension were gutted in fire accident. She is aged 76 years and she is not in a position to survive herself. Therefore, she requested them to pay pension and also the arrears.
vii) The said facts would reveal that the Disburser’s portion of the PPO was misplaced by the bank during migration from State Bank of Hyderabad to State Bank of India. The same was observed during data purification exercise. Therefore, for the mistake of the bank, the petitioner, widow of the freedom fighter cannot be penalized. The respondents have stopped the pension to the petitioner twice i.e., in the year 2014 and from September, 2020 on the very same ground. It is the specific case of the petitioner that she is aged about 78 years and she is not in a position to survive herself without pension. She has lost the aforesaid PPO and related documents in a fire accident. She is a resident of a small village i.e., Khanapur Village, Kohir Mandal, Sanga Reddy District. The said facts were not considered by the respondents.
viii) As per the guidelines, dated 06.08.2014, the moment Bank comes to know that the Disburser portion of a PPO is lost, it should immediately stop the payment of pension and take action against the concerned officers. In the present case, no action has been taken against the bank officials for misplacement of the disburser portion of PPO. The said fact has to be informed to the Ministry immediately. They have not informed the same. The Bank has informed about the same only on 11.05.2022. Thus, there is gross negligence on the part of respondent Nos.3 and 4 banks. It is the specific case of respondent no.2 that as soon as they receive the documents and information from the bank, they will process the claim of the petitioner in terms of the aforesaid Scheme.
ix) Vide letter dated 19.08.2022, respondent No.3 had requested the petitioner to submit certain documents i.e., original annexure VA in prescribed format, original family details certificate, original pensioner PPO, BSR Code, 4 sets of ID, last pension payment certificate etc. Thus, respondent No.3 is requesting the petitioner to submit copy of original disburser’s portion of PPO which she lost in a fire accident. The said fact was considered and pension was paid to the petitioner in 2016 after filing the aforesaid writ petition by the petitioner. Therefore, respondent No.3 cannot insist the petitioner to submit original disburser’s portion of PPO having lost the same from their custody during transmission from State Bank of Hyderabad to State Bank of India. For their mistake, they cannot penalize the petitioner herein. Thus, both respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 are throwing blame on each other. The petitioner is aged 78 years, widow of a freedom fighter.
CONCLUSION:
In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing respondent Nos.3 and 4 to depute a responsible Officer to the petitioner, obtain information required and send it to respondent No.2 within one (01) week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, they shall not insist for submission of original Disburser’s Portion of PPO which the petitioner lost in fire accident. On receipt of the said information from respondent Nos.3 and 4, respondent No.2 shall consider the claim of the petitioner within one (01) week thereafter and issue necessary instructions to respondent Nos.3 and 4 to pay pension and arrears to the petitioner from September, 2020 onwards. On receipt of such instructions, respondent Nos.3 and 4 shall pay pension to the petitioner herein. The respondents shall comply with the aforesaid directions within the aforesaid timeline otherwise the matter will be viewed seriously. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition shall also stand closed.