Point of Law act of officers of the Bank who have allegedly harassed the petitioner over payment of pension and have displayed apathy towards her grievances and would make it clear that any such iteration would be viewed seriously. [Para 17]

ORDER :

The petitioner is before this Court seeking a direction to the respondents by issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus to consider her representation dated 22-07-2021.

2. Heard Sri Hanumanthappa B.Haravi Gowdar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Smt. B.G.Nayana Tara, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 4 and Sri N.Kumar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.5.

3. Shorn of unnecessary details, facts in brief are as follows:-

The petitioner is the wife of one C. Sudhakar who was working as a Second Division Assistant in the office of the Deputy Commissioner of Police, CAR (Central), Bangalore who served the Department from 08-10-1982 to 29-12-2004 for about 22 years and dies on 29-12-2004. After the death of the husband of the petitioner, pension payment order for payment of family pension comes to be issued in favour of the petitioner commencing from 30-12-2004 in terms of pension payment order dated 22-07-2005. An amount of Rs.2430/-was deposited every month into the account of the petitioner maintained at Syndicate Bank, BWSSB Branch, Gandhinagar, Bangalore. On 07-11-2016 the petitioner visits the Bank only to be told that she cannot operate the account as there was some excess payment made to the family pension account of the petitioner. Immediately thereafter, the petitioner represents to the Bank requesting the Bank to unblock the account which would enable her to draw family pension. This was not acceded on the information that Rs.50,000/-was deposited in excess which was more than the entitlement of the petitioner as family pension.

4. At that juncture, the petitioner gives a representation stating that the Bank is at liberty to recover Rs.50,000/-excess pension paid. The representation was submitted on 18-03-2017. Even then the account of the petitioner was not unblocked. Years passed by and the petitioner goes on representing to the Bank and made a complaint to the Ombudsman when she received the information that her actual family pension was Rs.6732/-and excess amount of Rs.2,34,158/-deposited into the account was held in the SB account of the petitioner and was stopped from withdrawing the same as the account was put on hold. The petitioner also complains to the competent authority at the Canara Bank (‘Bank’ for short) as by then Syndicate Bank had merged into Canara Bank, seeking unblocking of her account. The last of the representations having gone unheeded, the petitioner knocks the doors of this Court in the subject petition seeking a direction to the Bank for unhindered release of family pension qua the entitlement of the petitioner.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been approaching the Bank or the 5th respondent/Treasury Officer for redressal of her grievance and even as on date the grievance is not redressed and the petitioner is not in a position to operate her account even, as the family pension account of the petitioner would get blocked until remittance of Rs.2,34,158/-is made by the petitioner. He would submit that the petitioner had initially offered that an amount of Rs.50,000/-be deducted from her account in 2016 itself. Six years have passed by with the respondents doing nothing and, therefore, the arrears have now increased.

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 4, submits that her submissions be taken as objections and would contend that on the instructions of the 5th respondent to block the account it was done so and the same status continues even as on date. No fault can be found with the officers of the Bank who have only followed the instructions of Government through its Treasury. She would further contend that the apprehension of the petitioner that it would again get blocked in future is unwarranted, though amount of excess pension has been paid