The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Lalita Jaiswal W.P.(S) No. 1926 of 2021 - V E R S U S – … … Petitioner 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Planning-cum-Finance, Govt. of Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi 2. Assistant General Manager, Centralised Pension Processing Centre (CPPC), State Bank of India, 4th Floor, Administrative Office, Judges’ Court Road, Patna, Bihar 3. Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Lapung Branch, Ranchi, Jharkhand. 4. Accountant Genera (A & E), Government of Jharkhand, Doranda, Ranchi … … Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S. N. PATHAK
Legal Reasoning
For the Petitioner For the State For the SBI For the Accountant General Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate Mr. Kumar Rahul Kamlesh, Advocate Mr. Rohit Kumar, AC to AAG-I Mr. Rajesh Kumar : : : 06/03.07.2024 Heard the parties. 2. 3. Petitioner is aggrieved by deduction of the amount to the tune of Rs. 7,84,077/-, which has been illegally and arbitrarily recovered from Family Pension Account of the petitioner by the State Bank of India, Lapung Branch, Ranchi. According to the petitioner, her husband was a High School Teacher who, after completion of 28 years’ service, died in harness on 25.11.2005. Thereafter, pension payment order was issued in her favour for grant of family pension. It is case of the petitioner that in view of liberalization of provision of the Family Pension Scheme, 1964, in respect to families of the State Government employees who dies in harness, the concept of enhanced family pension was introduced whereby provision was made that for a period of seven years from the date of death or up to the date on which deceased government servant would have attained the age of 65 years had he survived, whichever period is less, the pension payable will be at the rate of fifty percent of the basic pay last drawn. In terms thereof, the family pension was granted to the petitioner with effect from 25.11.2005 at an enhanced rate which was to be continued till 25.11.2012, which is apparent from the Pension Payment Order issued in her favour. Subsequently, in terms of the recommendation made by the Sixth Central Pay Commission, the Government of India, through office memorandum issued vide Memo No. F. No. 38/37/08-P & PW (A), dated 02.09.2008, mentioned under Clause 8.2, modified and increased the period of seven RC- 1 W.P.(S) No. 1926 of 2021 years to ten years without any upper age limit. Thereafter, the same was clarified vide O.M., dated 03.10.2008whereby it has specifically clarified that in terms of modification made under Clause 8.2 of the earlier circular, the period of ten years for payment of enhance family pension would also apply in case of a government servant who died before 01.01.2006 and in respect of whom the family was receiving enhanced family pension as on 01.01.2006 and the case of the petitioner was covered under the aforesaid provision. It is further case of the petitioner that after seven years of the family pension she already received, an amount to the tune of Rs.7, 84,077/- has been deducted on the ground that she has received enhanced family pension to which she was not entitled for. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner has knocked door of this Court. 4. Mr. Kumar Rahul Kamlesh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner vociferously argues that petitioner is entitled for the enhanced family pension in view of the government orders till 2015. Learned counsel further argues that it is not in quarrel that the period of seven years would be enhanced up to ten years in view of Government Circular dated 02.09.2008. However, in sheer confusion, the respondents – Bank has deducted such a huge amount on the flimsy ground that the same has illegally been received by her. Learned counsel further argues that PPO and the office order clearly shows that petitioner was entitled for the said amount till the year 2015. However, if at all any excess payment was made, it was only for the period of 2015 to 2018. It was open for the respondents to deduct the amount after issuance of notice and after getting instruction from the State Government. Mr. Rohit Sinha, AC to learned AAG submits that in absence of instruction, he is not in a position to say whether office memorandum issued by the Central Government is application to the State of Jharkhand or not. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel representing Bank submits that as per counter affidavit, the amount was received by the petitioner illegally and arbitrarily and, therefore, deduction has been made. Having heard rival submission of the parties, this Court is of the 5. 6. 7. considered view that case of the petitioner needs consideration for the following facts and reasons: (i) Admittedly petitioner was entitled for the family pension in enhanced rate in view of Government notification, as mentioned hereinabove. The RC- 2 W.P.(S) No. 1926 of 2021 period of seven years was enhanced to ten years in the 6th Pay Revision which is not in dispute. Up to first ten years, it cannot be said that petitioner has received family pension illegally at the enhanced rate. (ii) The Bank has to pay the pensionary benefits/ family pension as per the direction of the State. Bank is not an authority to decide whether petitioner has received the amount illegally or arbitrarily or against the provisions of law. If the same has been done, it is not outlook of the Bank. If at all it was to be recovered, the same has to be referred to the State on the ground that petitioner is getting pension at a higher rate than her entitlement and, thereafter, it was the State who is the competent authority to make recommendation to the Accountant General for issuance of fresh/revised PPO, if required. The Bank has exceeded its jurisdiction in deducting the amount. (iii) From the documents brought on record, the government notification and the PPO issued in favour of the petitioner, it is crystal clear that petitioner was entitled for the said amount. 8. 9. In view of facts and circumstances discussed hereinabove, let the amount recovered by the Bank for the period prior to the year 2015 be refunded along with statutory interest to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. A cost of Rs.25,000/- shall also be paid to the petitioner in addition. With the aforementioned observations and directions, the writ petition stands allowed. (Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.) RC- 3 W.P.(S) No. 1926 of 2021