Smt. Radhika Devi vs Union Of India & Ors.

The present O.A has been filed by the applicant under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 seeking following reliefs:-

The brief facts of the case are as follows:-

The applicant, aged about 87 years, claiming to be the widow of late Basdeo, who was working under respondent Nos. 1 to 3, has filed the present Original Application seeking quashing of the order dated 05.09.2023. It is the case of the applicant that after the death of her husband, family pension was sanctioned and paid to her. Subsequently, the respondents stopped payment of family pension and also started recovery from her. The plea of the applicant is that the payment was made by the respondent Bank and there was no misrepresentation or fraud on her part. Therefore, the recovery initiated against her is illegal. It is further the case of the applicant that her family pension was stopped on the ground that while submitting her life certificate, she submitted her Aadhaar Card in which her date of birth was different from the date of birth mentioned in the documents submitted by her husband at the time of sanction of pension and also in the PPO issued in respect of the family pension. It is submitted that merely because a different date of birth is mentioned in the Aadhaar Card, the PPO issued in favour of the applicant cannot be cancelled and recovery cannot be made from her. The applicant has filed various documents as Annexure A-1 to A-7 in support of her claim. She has, therefore, prayed for quashing of the impugned order and for a direction to the respondents not to initiate any recovery and to continue payment of family pension to her as per her entitlement.

Per contra, the respondent Bank has filed its counter affidavit stating therein that initially family pension was sanctioned in favour of the applicant after the death of the employee concerned. Subsequently, the applicant submitted her life certificate along with her Aadhaar Card, wherein a different date of birth was mentioned. For this reason, the family pension was stopped and recovery was initiated. The respondent Bank has annexed, as CR-1, the PPO which was initially issued in favour of the applicant.

Learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 has also filed a counter affidavit. The substance of the counter affidavit is that respondent Nos. 1 to 3 have not issued any direction to the Bank concerned to stop the family pension. They have also not disputed the identity of the applicant.

A rejoinder affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the applicant, reiterating the facts stated in the Original Application. A document received under the Right to Information Act has also been annexed as RA-1. Nothing new has been stated in the rejoinder affidavit.

I have heard Sri M.K. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the applicant, and Sri Arun Kumar Gupta and Ms. Archana Singh, learned counsel for the respondents, and have perused the record.

The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is an old lady aged about 87 years and was regularly receiving family pension after the death of her husband. No dispute was raised regarding her date of birth at the time of sanction of the family pension. The date of birth subsequently mentioned in the Aadhaar Card cannot be treated as conclusive proof of her date of birth. It is also submitted that, as per the records relied upon by the respondents, there is a difference in the date of birth. It may be possible that an incorrect date of birth was mentioned while preparing the Aadhaar Card. Since the applicant is an old and illiterate lady, she could not take steps for correction of the same at the relevant time. Thus, stopping of family pension on this ground by the Bank is illegal, particularly when the official respondents, under whom the applicant's husband was working, have neither raised any objection nor issued any direction to the Bank to stop the family pension. Learned counsel, therefore, submitted that the Original Application deserves to be allowed.

Learned counsel for the official respondents submitted that no direction has been issued by them to the Bank to stop payment of family pension.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that there was a mismatch between the date of birth of the applicant mentioned in the Aadhaar Card and the date of birth mentioned in the original PPO. On this ground, the family pension was stopped and recovery was initiated.

I have considered the rival submissions of the parties and have gone through the record.

Before considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, it would be useful to refer to the following observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and Others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Others, (2015) 4 SCC 334:-

In the present case, although the applicant was receiving family pension and the same was stopped on account of the mismatch in her date of birth in the documents submitted by her. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in my considered view, the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih (supra) are applicable to the present case also. The applicant is an old lady and there is no allegation of any fraud or misrepresentation on her part. The case of the applicant is, therefore, covered by the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih (supra).

At the initial stage, the PPO was issued by the official respondents granting family pension in favour of the applicant, wherein her date of birth was mentioned as 1930. The family register also shows the same date of birth. It appears that the Bank concerned stopped the family pension only on the ground that a different date of birth was subsequently mentioned in the Aadhaar Card submitted by the applicant. This by itself cannot be a sufficient ground for stopping the family pension and initiating recovery, particularly when the official respondents have not issued any direction to the Bank to stop the family pension. In case there was any discrepancy in the date of birth, the Bank concerned ought to have informed the official respondents and also given an opportunity to the applicant to explain the discrepancy. Without following such a course, the family pension could not have been stopped and recovery could not have been initiated. Applicant is an old lady aged about 87 years and is not fully conversant with legal proceedings. If she had not taken any steps for correction of her date of birth in the Aadhaar Card, the Bank concerned ought to have asked her to furnish the corrected Aadhaar Card. However, in no case the applicant’s family pension should have been stopped and recovery initiated merely on the basis of such discrepancy is also not sustainable. Therefore, the Original Application deserves to be allowed.

Accordingly, the Original Application is allowed and the impugned order dated 05.09.2023 is quashed. The respondents are directed to restore the family pension of the applicant and stop the recovery, if already initiated. Any amount already recovered from the applicant shall be refunded to her within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. In case the recovered amount is not refunded within the aforesaid period, the applicant shall be entitled to interest at the GPF rate on the said amount from the date of expiry of the aforesaid period of three months till the date of actual payment. There shall be no order as to costs. All associated MAs stand disposed of.