AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Dilip Gupta, J.—The Petitioner has appeared in person and has made submission for claiming relief No. (iii) in the writ Petition which is as follows:
Necessary payment of long outstanding arrears dues, gratuity CPV and difference of CPV owing to increased pension rate from Rs. 908/ - to Rs. 2715/ -, 2908/ - to Rs. 3109/ - corrigendum PPO No. C/Corr/Fys/06250/98, C/Covr/Fy/99/6/99, C/Corr/Fy/10293/ AOII in original PPO No. C/Fy/12066/96 together with confessed amount Rs. 23688/ - not paid (Annexure No. 14 on page 40) and monthly pension difference calculation sheet (Annexure No. 47) duly verified by the Authorities Head of Office, G.M. SAFY Kanpur, C.D.A. (Pension) Allahabad Respondent No. 2.
It transpires from the records of the writ Petition that while the Petitioner was working in the Small Arms Factory, Kanpur Nagar punishment of reduction of pay at two stages with cumulative effect for a period of two years was imposed upon the Petitioner by the order dated 3rd July, 1991. This order was challenged by the Petitioner before the Central Administrative Tribunal by filing Original Application No. 1211 of 1991 which was rejected on 4th July, 1997. These orders were assailed by the Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 37134 of 1997 which was allowed by the judgment and order dated 1st October, 2002 and the Respondents were directed to pay arrears of salary to the Petitioner and the difference of other retiral benefits which would be payable to him along with simple interest at the rate of 9%. The Department, therefore, by the order dated 27th December, 2002 cancelled the order dated 3rd July, 1991 and by the order dated 4th July, 2003 re-fixed the pay at Rs. 6200/ - on 1st January, 1996 and Rs. 6350/ - on 1st June, 1996. Since the Petitioner had retired on 31st August, 1996, his case was forwarded to the Principal Controller of the Defence Accounts (Pension), Allahabad for revision of pension. A revised order was issued authorising enhancement of pension to the Pension Disbursing Authority i.e. Central Bank of India for calculating and crediting the amount to the account of the Petitioner accordingly. In accordance with the Pension Payment Order as amended from time to time, Capitalized Value of Pension (CVP) and Gratuity were credited to the account of the Petitioner by the Central Bank of India as Pension Disbursing Authority. The Central Bank of India, however, found that Rs. 17990/ - had been paid to the Petitioner in excess which was recovered by the Bank. It is, however, the case of the Small Arms Factory, Kanpur that due to non-receipt of intimation regarding the amount of arrears or terminal benefits due to the Petitioner from the Principal Controller of the Defence Accounts (Pension) Allahabad, it has not been able to make payment of 9% interest on the increase in pension and terminal benefits.
The Petitioner felt aggrieved by the fixation of his pension and filed Writ Petition No. 26309 of 2008 which was disposed of by the judgment and order dated 20th November, 2008 with the following observations:
The controversy raised in the Petition, as culled out with great difficulty is, that the Petitioner was a civilian employee working in the Pension Cell of the Arms Factory, Kanpur and retired in the year 1996. The Petitioner is aggrieved by the incorrect fixation of his pension and whatever pension has been fixed by the employer, is not being disbursed by the Bank. Not only this, the Bank has started deducting certain amount from his pension alleging that excess payment has been made to the Petitioner in the past which is now been adjusted.
Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and the Petitioner in person, this Court finds it very difficult to give a finding on any of the issues raised in the Petition since clear cut averments have not been spelt out in the writ Petition. According to the Bank, a statement has been filed of the amount which is due to the Petitioner and which has been drawn by him. This is Annexure CA-2 to the counter affidavit. This statement indicates that an excess amount of Rs. 17,990/ - has been made to the Petitioner which is required to be recovered and which has been recovered by the Bank. According to the Petitioner, this statement is incorrect and is not reflected in his Pass Book which is being issued by the Bank but this document has not been categorically denied by the Petitioner in his rejoinder affidavit. On the other hand, the Petitioner has placed reliance upon Annexure Nos. 46 and 47 to the writ Petition and, according to Annexure No. 47, the Petitioner is entitled to certain amount. This statement (Annexure No. 47) has unfortunately being given to the Central Bank of India. The Central Bank of India can only pay to the Petitioner such amount as per the PPO Order and has no authority to re-fix or correct the pension. The refixation of the pension, if any, can only be done by the employer. If wrong fixation of the pension has been made by the employer, the Petitioner should approach the employer concerned.
In the light of the aforesaid, this Court is unable to decide the controversy at this stage and dispose of the writ Petition with the following directions:
The Petitioner should file Annexure No. 47 to the writ Petition page 109 before the competent authority, CDA (Pension), Dropadi Ghat, Allahabad along with a representation indicating the amount payable to him as per his own calculation pursuant to the PPO Order. If such an application is filed, the authority will consider the matter and intimate the Petitioner, as to what amount, is due and payable to him as per the relevant Personal Pension Order and Government Orders issued from time to time by which the pension is revised.
Based on the statement given by the CDA (Pension) of the amount due to the Petitioner, the Petitioner would then approach the Bank. The Bank will accordingly consider the statement given by the CDA (Pension) and verify it from the amount paid by them to the Petitioner, and thereafter, calculate the amount to be paid or to be recovered from the Petitioner. If any amount become payable to the Petitioner, the same would be paid to the Petitioner at the earliest.
This exercise will be done by the CDA (Pension) within four weeks from the date of the receipt of the application and by the Bank within four weeks from the date of the receipt of the statement due and payable to the Petitioner issued by CDA pension.
Pursuant to the aforesaid order of this Court, the office of the Controller of the Defence Accounts (Pension), Allahabad issued the letter dated 20th February, 2009 to the Petitioner which is as follows:
In compliance of the Hon''ble Court order dated 20.11.2008 passed in CMWP No. 26309 dated 20.11.2008 filed by you, your representation dated April/May 2008 received along with the Court order has been examined and it is stated as under:
Your basic pension @ Rs. 908.00 P.M. sanctioned vide P.P.O. No. cited under reference has further been revised as under:
(a) Rs. 2716.00 w.e.f. 1/9/96 vide P.P.O. No. C/ Cor/Fys/06250/1998 dated 9.3.98
(b) Rs. 2809.00 -do- vide P.P.O. No. C/Cor/Fys/09776/1999 dated 30.12.99
(c) Rs. 3109.00-do- vide P.P.O. No. C/Cor/Fys/ 10297/2003 dated 16.9.2003
Apart from the above, the difference of gratuity and CVP has also been authorised. Annexure showing the details is attached herewith.
The due portion of the dues drawn statement shown as Annexure-47 has been verified with reference to the P.P.O''s mentioned above and has been found correct.
As regards drawn portion of the due drawn statement, the same can only be verified by Central Bank of India, Shastri Nagar, Branch Kanpur being the P.D.A.
Accounts Officer (P)
Copy to:
The General Manager, Central Bank of India, Shastri Nagar, Branch Kanpur (U.P.) for information with respect to Hon''ble High Court order in CMWP No. 26309 dated 20.1108, you are requested to verify the amount paid by you and calculate the amount to be paid or to be recovered from the Petitioner and issue speaking order to Petitioner in compliance of Court order.
Account Officer (P)
In turn, the Central Bank of India also informed the Petitioner by the letter dated 20th March, 2009 that the pension has been paid strictly in accordance with the directions of the Controller of the Defence Accounts (Pension), Allahabad and the letter is as follows:
In the aforesaid matter, we carefully gone through your representation under reference as well as the order of CDA Pension dated 20.02.09 addressed to you under copy to us. The CDA Pension has clearly mentioned in their order that the due portion of the due drawn statement shown as Annexure 47 has been verified by them with reference to the P.P.O''s mentioned in the said order was found correct. Accordingly, we also checked our drawn statement and found that there is no discrepancy in our drawn statement and the pension paid to you is strictly as per directions of the CDA pension Allahabad.
The Petitioner, however, filed Contempt Petition No. 1652 of 2009 which was dismissed by the order dated 15th October, 2009 with the following observations:
Having perused the material on record, this Court is of the opinion that the directions contained in the judgment and order dated 20.11.2008 have been complied with by the opposite parties. After the judgment of this Court was served on the opposite party No. 1, he passed an order dated 20th February, 2009 giving details of the pension initially fixed by the Department and subsequently revised from time to time. The order along with annexures were served on the applicant and copy thereof was marked to the Manager, Central Bank of India, Shastri Nagar, Kanpur Nagar. The said order dated 20th February, 2009 has been annexed as Annexure 10 to the contempt application. Further along with the application is annexed letter of the Senior Manager of the Central Bank of India, Shastri Nagar Branch, Kanpur Nagar on 20th March, 2009 mentioning therein that statement given by the C.D.A pension has been duly verified and it was found that there was no discrepancy in the payments made in the account of the applicant. Despite the same present Contempt Application has been filed.
Along with the response filed by Respondent-opposite party Nos. 1 and 2, in particular opposite party No. 2 the complete statement of accounts has also been filed from which it appears that the amount of pension and other arrears due from time to time to the applicant and as communicated by the C.D.A. Pension has been duly credited to the account of the applicant. The applicant has tried to show some discrepancy but what transpired from the record is that the accumulated amount have been credited to the account of the applicant and it is for this reason that the exact figure as shown by the applicant may not have been depicted in the statement of account but on the relevant date what has been credited in the account is a larger amount which apparently include other arrears as well as the current pension due at that time. Thus, what is apparent is that the direction of this Court, issued to the C.D.A. Pension and the Central Bank of India have been duly complied with inasmuch as in compliance thereof orders have been passed by both the institutions and the applicant is getting his pension regularly without any default. The applicant has also been withdrawing the pension from his account with the Central Bank of India. In any case directions of this Court having been complied with, I do not find any reason to proceed with any further. The scope of inquiry in contempt proceedings is limited. It cannot examine the correctness of the orders passed by the authorities. In case the applicant is still aggrieved by the orders passed by opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 it is open to him to assail the same in appropriate proceedings.
According to the Petitioner, the entire amount due under the order of the High Court has not been paid to him.
Counter affidavits have been filed by Respondent No. 2-Controller of Defence Accounts (Pension), Respondent No. 3-Central Bank of India and Respondent No. 4-General Manager, Small Arms Factory, Kanpur.
In the counter affidavit filed by the Controller of the Defence Accounts (Pension), Allahabad, it is mentioned:
That, the contents of paragraph No. 6 of the writ Petition are not admitted. It is however further submitted that this Respondent has informed to Central Bank of India, Kanpur vide letter No. AT/PSB/IX/UP06 dated 31.01.2007 that the due statement is correct and forwarded to Central Bank of India, Kanpur duly verified for notification of drawn portion.
That the contents of paragraph No. 7 of the writ Petition are not admitted. However, it is submitted that this Respondent has complied Hon''ble Court''s order and intimated amount payable to pensioner vide letter No. AT/PSB/IX/UP/09 dated 20.02.2009....
In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Central Bank of India, it is stated:
3(c) That in pursuance of the P.P.O. as amended from time to time the Petitioner is entitled to CVP (Capitalized value of pension) and Gratuity which has been duly credited in the Petitioner''s account by the Respondent bank in his capacity as Pension Disbursing Authority as under:
Sr. P.P.O. No. CVP Gratuity Rs. Total Rs. Date of No Rs. Credit 1 C/FYS/12066/96 37,908/ - 59,135/ - 97,043/ - 10/09/96 Withheld gratuity paid 01,000/ - 07/04/1997 2 C/Corr/FYS/6250/98 98,407/ - 38,535/ - 1,36,942/ - of which payment made as under 1,27,404/ - 02/06/1998 0,09,538/ - 05/08/1998 3 C/Corr/FYS/9776/99 04,644/ - ------ 04,644/ - 08/03/00 4 C/Corr/FYS/10297/03 15,063/ - 10,296/ - 25,359/ - 03/11/03
(d). That thus as demonstrated above CVP (Capitalized value of pension and Gratuity amount has been duly credited in the Petitioner''s account and there is no balance to be paid on these heads. It may also be stated here that this Hon''ble Court while passing the order dated 15.10.09 [page Nos. 64 to 67 to the writ Petition] directing the contempt Petition filed by the Petitioner to consigned to record being devoid of merits, this Hon''ble Court has observed that complete statement of account has also been filed by the bank from which it appears that the amount of pension and other arrears due from to time and as communicated by the CDA Pension has been duly credited to the account of Petitioner, it was also observed that on the relevant dates what has been credited in the account is a larger amount which apparently includes other arrears as well as the current pension due at that time.
....
(g). That it may be stated here that the Petitioner being not satisfied with the payment made was representing his matter before different authorities. In view of the above, a correct Due and Drawn statement of Petitioner''s pension account was prepared by the Respondent bank and same was forwarded to the office of Controller General Defence Accounts, New Delhi and also to the office of C.D.A. Pension, Allahabad.
(h). That the aforesaid due and drawn statement was scrutinized and found correct by Respondent No. 2-the office of C.D.A. Pension Allahabad. The said fact was intimated by them vide their letter dated 31.01.07 addressed to concerned Shastri Nagar branch of Respondent bank, [under copy endorse to the Petitioner] with further direction that drawn statement may be checked once again by bank....
(i) That apart from the fact that copy of the said letter dated 31.01.07 sent by Office of C.D.A. Pension Allahabad was marked for Petitioner the above fact was also duly communicated by the Respondent bank to the Petitioner vide letter dated 06.02.07 [page 34 to the writ Petition].
(j) That a perusal of the due and drawn statement [annexure 2 of this affidavit] indicates that an excess payment of Rs. 17,990= has been made by the Respondent bank which the Respondent bank is fully entitled to recover from the Petitioner.
(k) That in view of the above Respondent bank initiated recovery of the excess payment and amount of Rs. 1590= per month was recovered/deducted corresponding to month of March, April and May, 07 from the account of the pensioner on 01.03.07, 18.05.07 and 18.05.07 [total Rs. 1590 x 3 = 4770] and the said fact was also communicated to the Petitioner vide letter dated 16.06.07 sent by Respondent bank which is page 39 to the writ Petition. However subsequently taking into account the dissatisfaction of the Petitioner the recovery was discontinued by the Respondent bank.
(l) That Respondent bank vide its letter dated 11.05.07 addressed to Office of C.D.A. Pension Allahabad also inform them that as directed [vide letter dated 31.01.07] Drawn statement has been rechecked and there is no error in it and consequently recovery is being made from the Petitioner....
(m) That meanwhile the Petitioner filed representation submitting his own calculation chart and the Controller General Defence Accounts, New Delhi vide letter dated 30.04.07 [page 39(1) to the writ Petition] addressed to the Respondent No. 2-office of C.D.A. Pension Allahabad directed them to check both the statement i.e. one submitted by bank and another by Petitioner and issue the clear direction to the Respondent bank. In response thereto Respondent No. 2-Office of C.D.A. Pension Allahabad vide letter dated 28.05.07 [page 36 to the writ Petition] while directing the bank to inform them the steps taken by bank, informed the Controller General Defence Accounts, New Delhi that bank has already been directed vide letter dated 31.01.07 that due statement is fully correct and after deducting the drawn the balance amount be paid to Petitioner.
(n) That in response to the letter dated 28.05.07 issued by Office of C.D.A. Pension Allahabad, the Respondent bank''s branch Kanpur and its Central Office, Mumbai, vide its letter dated 06.06.07 and 07.06.07, draw their attention towards the letter dated 30.04.07 [page 39(1) to the writ Petition] sent by Controller General Defence Accounts, New Delhi and requested that necessary action may be taken and Respondent bank may be informed accordingly. In response to the aforesaid letters, Office of C.D.A. Pension Allahabad, vide its letter dated 20.09.07 [annexure 25 page 70 to the previous writ Petition] again directed that it has already been informed that due statement is correct, Petitioner being unsatisfied as such drawn statement be checked again and payment be made....
(o) That thus Respondent No. 2-Office of C.D.A. Pension Allahabad, was of the constant view that due statement is correct and only drawn statement needs checking; accordingly drawn statement was checked by Respondent bank and was found correct. In view of the above an amount of Rs. 17,990= was recovered from the account of Petitioner on 02.04.08 [by adjustment in pension: Rs. 0,5334 + Rs. 12656 = Rs. 17,990]. However, Rs. 4770= already recovered in month of March and May, 07 has been reversed in the Petitioner''s account on 27.10.08.
....
(t). That it may be stated here that Respondent bank has fully paid all the dues/arrears towards C.V.P.-Capitalized value of pension, Gratuity and arrears of pension revised vide latest P.P.O. No. C/Corr/FYS/10297/03 issued by the office of C.D.A. Pension Allahabad and there is no balance to be paid to the Petitioner....
In the counter affidavit filed by the General Manager, Small Arms Factory, Kanpur it is stated:
That, the Pension Disbursing Bank had intimated that a sum of Rs. 17,900/ - has been excess paid to pensioner as per their own calculation which was recovered from pensioner by Bank accordingly. Details of due/drawn has not been provided by Bank Authorities on continuous personal approached of officers/personnel of this office. Due to non receipt of intimation regarding amount of arrears/terminal benefit due to pensioner from the Principal Controller Defence Accounts (Pension), Allahabad/Pension Disbursing Bank to this office, the Factory is unable to pay 9% interest as per order of this Hon''ble Court.
That, in reply to the contents of paragraph No. 17 of the writ Petition, it is stated that this factory is under the obligation to pay 9% interest on the arrear on increase in pension and terminal benefits. The PDA Bank has been constantly approached in writing and by personal approaches but they are not giving proper response and settlement of this obligation is still pending. Therefore, the writ Petition is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed.
Affidavits filed by the Respondents and the documents annexed therein clear show that all dues except interest on the arrears on increase in pension and terminal benefits have been paid to the Petitioner and indeed the Small Arms Factory admits that 9% interest on the arrears on increase in pension and terminal benefits have not been paid because of non-receipt of information from the Principal Controller of the Defence Accounts (Pension), Allahabad/Pension Disbursing Authority.
The Principal Controller of the Defence Accounts (Pension), Allahabad/Pension Disbursing Authority shall, therefore, give details to the Small Arms Factory, Kanpur within a period of one month from the date a certified copy of this order is filed before them so that the payment of 9% interest may be made to the Petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months thereafter, if it has already not been paid in the meantime.
The writ Petition is disposed of subject to the observations made above.