Smt. Mahendri Devi vs Union Of India & Ors.

( By Hon’ble Dr. Sanjiv Kumar, Member(Administrative)

This Original Application is filed under section 19 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 seeking relief to direct the respondents to release the arrears as well as the current family pension and allow the petitioner to withdraw the same as an outcome or death of her husband namely Rati Ram and suitable order directing the respondents to provide admissible interest to the petitioner on the accumulated amount of family pension since the date of her entitlement. Prayer has also been made to issue an order which this Tribunal may deem fit and also award costs.

The facts of the case of the applicant is that the husband of the applicant Rati Ram was a government servant who was working as Daftry under the respondents’ establishment who retired from service on 31.01.1999 and died on 23.04.2003. After retirement of the applicant’s husband the office of the Chief C.D.A. (Pensions), Allahabad issued Pension Payment Order (PPO) NO. C/MISC/17466/98 on 17.09.1998 in favour of the husband of the applicant and also issued PPO No. C/CORR/MISC/09877/98 on 10.12.1998 and PPO No. C/CORR/MISC/06603/99 on 03.07.1999. The Department issued a letter dated 05.01.1999 to the Branch Manager, respondent no. 3 enclosing a copy of particulars of applicant and directing him to make payment of pension and gratuity to the husband of applicant and in the above letter dated 05.01.1999, it is clarified that the applicant is wife of Shri Rati Ram and after the death of her husband on 23.04.2003 the applicant was legally entitled to get the family pension. After the death of her husband, she approached the office of the Director respondent no. 2 and also the Branch Manager of the Bank, respondent no. 3 for paying her the family pension and gave an application which was followed by many applications. Oldest of them was dated 23.09.2003 and the latest on 07.01.2015 which have also been filed along with the OA. After the direction of respondents no. 3, the applicant submitted before the Branch Manager, respondent no. 3, the joint photographs of her and her husband which was authenticated and issued by the office of the Director, as per their record. Thereafter, Senior Accounts Officer-I in the office of the respondent no. 2 issued a letter dated 11.11.2003 to the Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank, respondent no. 3 clearly making reference of the aforesaid PPOs issued in favour of applicant’s husband and also specifically mentioned therein that the applicant is entitled for all the pensionary benefits of the deceased pensioner Rati Ram. Thereafter, great efforts of persuasion and running from pillar to post the respondent Bank on 28.03.2007 issued a certificate of nomination, showing registration of nomination at Sl. No. 2463827452 in favour of the applicant. There is no other claimant of family pension on account of death of the employee Rati Ram but the applicant was not given the family pension. The applicant has fulfilled all the formalities required by the respondents and in spite of that being a statutory duty in not providing the family pension, respondents have failed to comply with the Rules. The respondents’ conduct in failing to provide the family pension to the applicant is illegal, arbitrary and unjust and to challenge the same the applicant earlier approached to the Hon’ble High Court by filing Writ Petition No. 22522 of 2015- Smt Mahendri Devi vs. Union of India and others. The Hon’ble High Court by means of order dated 22.04.2015 was pleased to dismiss the above Writ Petition filed by the petitioner on the ground of alternative remedy of approaching this Hon’ble Tribunal. As being the housewife and illiterate, the applicant does not know the nuances of law and process and there is no deliberate intention to delay in approaching this Court. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, this court may direct to give the relief to the applicant.

The official respondents have filed their counter wherein they concur with the facts of the case of the applicant and state that the case is about the payment of family pension of the wife of Late Shri Rati Ram who worked in the office of respondent no. 1 as DAFTRY and retired on superannuation on 31.09.1999. Thereafter, PPO dated 17.09.1998 was issued and he was in receipt of pension through Punjab National Bank, Bulandshahar, U.P. He died on 23.04.2003 and after his death, his wife Smt. Mahendri Devi approached the aforesaid Band for family pension in accordance with records of respondent no. 2 and nomination available with the office i.e. PCDA(P) Allahabad had already mentioned in the said PPO, the applicant namely Smt. Mahendri Devi as wife of Late Rati Ram. So, after the death of Shri Rati Ram, the Pension Disbursing Authority (respondent no. 3) was required to make payment of family pension to Smt. Mahendri Devi. Owing to some complaint to the Pension Disbursing Authority (Bank Manager) made by Shri Shyam Singh, resident of Village Salempur, Gurjar District Gautam Budha Nagar (UP), the case of the payment of her family pension could not be further processed by the Pension Disbursing Authority i.e. respondent no. 3. The respondent no. 3 approached the respondent no. 2 for clarification regarding her eligibility for family pension in the light of above said complaint vide their letter No. Nil dated 17.10.2003 and the respondent no. 2 had already clarified to respondent no.3 (Pension Disbursing Authority) vide their letter no. P/0501/Pension/LASTEC dated 11.11.2003. As per records available in the office, respondents clarified that Smt. Mahendri Devi is the wife of Late Rati Ram and the late employee had already given nomination in her favour. Therefore, the applicant is entitled for all pensionary benefits. Thus, no action is pending on the part of respondent no. 1 & 2 and further action is required to be taken by the Respondent No.3 i.e. Punjab National Bank, Bulandshahar, U.P.

The respondent no. 3 has also been served with notice. One Shri K M Asthana filed vakalatnama on behalf of respondent no. 3 but he has remained absent. On the last date of hearing i.e. on 29.11.2023, the applicant’s counsel and counsel for the official respondents were present but the counsel for respondent no. 3 (Punjab National Bank) remained absent and on the earlier date i.e. on 07.11.2023, this court observed the following:-

Hence, on the present day of 29.11.2023, in spite of the said order dated 07.11.2023 it was in the notice of the respondent no. 3 but also they have chosen to remain absent. So, they are kept ex parte. As the respondent no. 3 is in the full notice of the proceedings before this court and urgency because the Hon’ble High Court had directed this Tribunal to decide this case early, and as the case is quite bizarre that for 20 years a widow is not getting pension in spite of the department is telling that she is eligible to and the Bank being a mere agent of the Department to disburse the pension is not giving the same. Hence, there is no other go before me to keep them ex parte and decide the matter on merit.

I have gone through the entire records carefully and considered the rival contentions.

From the exchange of pleadings and contentions of the OA and facts narrated there and contents of counter affidavit of the official respondents and facts narrated therein, I find that there is unanimity between official respondent nos. 1 & 2 and the applicant and all facts and reliefs claimed by the applicant has been conceded by the respondents. Only respondent no. 3 have failed to explain their conduct why they have been withholding the pension of the old helpless applicant which was due since 2003 after the death of her husband and which Department had clarified through their letter dated 11.11.2003 to the Bank. Although from the averments of the respondents, it is very clear that earlier Bank had withheld the pension because there was a complain to the Pension Disbursing Authority made by Shri Shyam Singh, a resident of village Salempur, Gurjar District Gautam Budha Nagar (UP), and the payment of her family pension could not be further processed by the Pension Disbursing Authority. The Pension Disbursing Authority had asked vide their letter dated 17.10.2003 to the Department to clarify the issue and the Department had already clarified to the respondent no. 3 vide their letter dated 11.11.2003 in letter no. P/01501/Pension/LASTEC. Hence, it is not understandable why the Department who is the principal and the Bank being only its agent to disburse the family pension has not disbursed the pension. The Bank has been wanting in action on such urgent matter. Inter alia other things the Master Circular of the Reserve Bank of India- Disbursement of government pension by Agency Banks dated 0304.2023, clarifies on certain aspects in the form of question and answers. And on family pension it mentions the following:-

Simple reading of the above guidelines makes it amply clear that the paying Bank must ensure smooth payment of family pensioner, any pension due without any hassle. And in case of any delayed credit of pension/ arrears of pension at an interest rate of 8 per cent per annum additional payment for the delay after the due date of payment will be required. This makes it amply clear that the Disbursing Bank Branch should be vigilant and prompt in any pension case to ensure all payments are in time. In a recent order dated 17.02.2023 passed by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in W P No. 405 of 2023 for the payment of Arrears of Freedom Fighter’s pension, where the pension payment was stopped due to non-submission of life certificate, imposed heavy cost and reiterated that, “It is expected from the Bank that, apart from stopping the pension, they should immediately visit the pensioner to find out why he/she did not submit the Life Certificate.” Meaning thereby that in such contingency Bank cannot sit idly just by cancelling the payments which means that in cases of pension and matters related to senior citizens and that of family pension of a widow, also, the Bank has to give utmost priority in day to day work and the Bank Managers must find time to visit them personally and take immediate decision to disburse their pension, if otherwise eligible. In this case, for last 20 years, pension has not been disbursed that is certainly a matter of great concern and seeing the unusual circumstances, I pass the following orders:

The instant Original Application is allowed and the respondent no. 3 i.e. Punjab National Bank (Branch Manager), Bilaspur Branch, District Gautam Budha Nagar, is directed to release the pension of the applicant immediately within a period of three weeks from the date of the order, and also to give all the arrears due since the date it became due in the year 2003 after the death of the husband of the applicant with the interest rates prevailing in the Bank for senior citizens from time to time on compounded basis which exercise shall be completed in three months’ time. The senior most person of the Branch of Punjab National Bank where the account of this widow is present shall personally see that these are disbursed within the time frame given, failing which he shall also be liable for a personal cost of Rs. 20,000/-. If, within three months, all the consequential benefits are not reached to the applicant, the Chairman, Punjab National Bank and Managing Director may also get an enquiry conducted as to why such callous and unprofessional response has happened in this case and fix responsibility and take disciplinary action against all concerned as delay in paying pension clearly is on the part of the Bank. All interest or arrears shall be paid from the Bank’s own fund and principal shall come from the concerned Department. The Department is also directed to ensure that enough fund is made available to the Bank and also nominate a senior officer to visit the Bank and widow and ensure that she gets the pension and if they fail to do so, the respondent no. 2, the present incumbent Director, Laser Science and Technology Centr, DRDO, MoD, Govt. of India, Met Café House, Delhi – 110054, shall be held accountable for the default and as penalty, cost of Rs. 20,000 shall be imposed on him, if the order is not complied within the time frame prescribed,

Further, the cost of Rs. 50.000/- shall be paid to the applicant for unwarranted delay, harassment and penury caused to the poor widow family pensioner. And half of this cost shall be borne by the department and other half shall be borne by the Punjab National Bank, and the cost shall be paid within four weeks’ time.

All associated M.As. also stand disposed of accordingly.