AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER HON’BLE MR. PANKAJ KUMAR, MEMBER (A)
In this case relating to the recovery, the applicant has sought the following reliefs:
a)The Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 05.09.2024 contained in Annexure No. A-1 and also Annexure No. A-2 & Annexure No. A-3 which has taken strength from Annexure No. A-1.
b)To direct the respondents to reverse back the recovered amount from applicant's pension with 12% interest on it.
c)To pay the difference of pension as per PPO dated 16.04.2025 which is Rs. 33720.00 and the actual payment of family pension which is Rs. 33189.00 with arrears with 12% on it.
d)To pass any other relief, which this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit, just and proper under the circumstances of the case, may also be passed.
e)To allow the cost of application upon the respondents.
The facts of the case are that the applicant’s husband, Indu Bhushan Kashyap, retired from service under the respondents on 30.09.2007 and he died on 16.10.2013 leaving behind the applicant who has been receiving family pension since. The respondents commenced recovery from applicant’s family pension beginning the month of March, 2025. Aggrieved, the applicant has preferred this OA.
The applicant contends that as per the revised Pension Payment Order (PPO) dated 16.04.2025, the family pension of the applicant with effect from 01.01.2016 is Rs. 33,720 while respondent no. 4 and 5 (Canara Bank) were disbursing only Rs. 33,189 to her. She further contends that the recovery ordered by respondent no. 2 vide order dated 05.09.2024 (Annexure No. A-1 to the OA) and the recovery of Rs. 26,39,246 assessed by respondent no. 5 (Annexure No. A-2 to the OA) are without any basis in view of the revised PPO dated 16.04.2025. Finally, the applicant contends that such recovery is impermissible in terms of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab vs Rafiq Masih (Whitewasher) (2015) 4 SCC 334.
Respondents no. 4 and 5 (Canara Bank) state that they are the pension disbursing agency and respondent no. 3 is the pension sanctioning authority and that they were disbursing family pension to the applicant at the notional rate of Rs. 33,189 (Rs. 12,914 x 2.57) as the revised PPO under the 7th Central Pay Commission’s (CPC) recommendations had not been received by them. However, they received letter dated 05.09.2024 from respondent no. 2 advising recovery from certain pensioners, including the applicant on the ground that the family pension being paid to the applicant was more than her eligibility for Rs. 12,690 and that based on the letter dated 05.09.2024 they issued show cause notice to the applicant on 15.03.2025 and recovered an amount of Rs. 17,260 from her pension for the month of March, 2025 and stopped further recovery after receiving complaint from the applicant. They further state that after enquiring with respondent no. 3, they received the revised PPO dated 16.04.2025 on 08.05.2025 and based on the revised PPO an amount of Rs. 1,23,652 was paid to the applicant for the period from 01.01.2016 to 30.04.2025 on 20.05.2025 which includes the amount of Rs. 17,260 recovered from the applicant’s family pension.
Respondents no. 1 and 3 (Northern Railway) state that as per PPO dated 25.03.2009 (6th CPC), the pension fixed was Rs. 21,522 and family pension payable was Rs. 12,914 and as per revised PPO dated 16.04.2025 (7th CPC) the applicant’s family pension is Rs. 33,220. They contend that they have no role in the debit scroll maintained by respondent no. 2.
Respondent no. 2 (North Central Railway) states that the applicant’s family pension reflected in PPO data available on ARPAN Portal was found to be Rs. 12,690 whereas pension of Rs. 33,189 was being disbursed by respondents no. 4 & 5 and, accordingly, discrepancy statement was prepared on the basis of PPO issued by respondent no. 1 and 3 (Northern Railway) and communicated to respondent no. 4 and 5 for re-verification with the request that if excess payment was found after verification, recovery may be made.
Heard the parties.
It is not in dispute that the family pension payable to the applicant with effect from 01.01.2016 is Rs. 33,720 as per PPO dated 12.04.2025 (Annexure No. A-7 to the OA). Yet through their acts of omission and commission, the respondents have put the applicant to avoidable harassment and caused this avoidable litigation, in my opinion.
Respondents no. 1 and 3 are at fault for sleeping over the matter of revision of PPO of the applicant after 7th CPC’s recommendations were accepted by the Union Government. It was only after the applicant complained to respondents no. 4 and 5 and they made enquiries with respondent no. 3 that the respondents no. 1 and 3 woke up from their slumber and issued the revised PPO on 12.04.2025 effective from 01.01.2016.
Respondent no. 2 is at fault for issuing letter dated 05.09.2024 stating that certain pensioners, including the applicant, were receiving enhanced pension after the due date and indicating overpayment of Rs. 21,11,397 to the applicant. The fact that respondent no. 2 asked respondents no. 4 and 5 to re-verify the matter does not absolve him from the responsibility of issuing letter dated 05.09.2024 without due application of mind which set off the chain of events culminating in the present litigation which was totally avoidable.
Respondent no. 4 and 5 are at fault for mechanically implementing the direction of respondent no. 2 as contained in letter dated 05.09.2024 without enquiring into the matter themselves and thereby erroneously issuing notice dated 15.03.2025 for recovery of Rs. 26,39,246 to the applicant and effecting recovery of Rs. 17,260 and issuing further notice dated 03.04.2025 for recovery of remaining amount of Rs. 26,21,986.
In view of the foregoing, this OA is allowed. Orders dated 05.09.2024, 15.03.2025 and 03.04.2025 are quashed and set aside.
Respondents no. 1 and 3 shall pay interest at the Bank rate applicable to the applicant through respondents no. 4 and 5 on arrears of family pension paid to her belatedly on the basis of revised PPO dated 12.04.2025.
Northern Railway (respondents no. 1 and 3), North Central Railway (respondent no. 2) and Canara Bank (respondents no. 4 and 5) shall pay the cost of Rs. 10,000 each to the applicant (total cost Rs. 30,000) for the avoidable harassment caused to her.
The above exercise shall be completed within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
Associated MAs also stand disposed of.