Back
HARISH KUMAR
Lalita Mishra – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
Harish Kumar, J.—Heard Mr. Shardanand Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Abbas Haider, learned counsel for the State Bank of India and Ms. Kanak Verma, learned counsel for the Union of India.
2. The short facts, which led to the filing of the present writ petition, are that the husband of the petitioner, namely, Bhuban Mohan Mishra was initially appointed as Auditor on 17.06.1965; on account of his ailment, he took voluntary retirement on medical ground on 17.10.1998 after completing his qualifying service. On being superannuated, the husband of the petitioner was provided pension and gratuity for which PPO No. C/DAD 66/1999 was issued from the office of the Chief Controller of Defence Accounts (Pension), Allahabad, fixing his pension @ Rs. 3502/- per month w.e.f. 17.10.1998 for life and family pension in favour of the petitioner at enhanced rate @ Rs. 3502/- per month following the date of death of husband of the petitioner for seven years or for a period up to date of which the deceased government servant would have attained the age of 65 years or till death or remarriage, whichever is earlier and thereafter normal family pension @ Rs. 2103/- per month subject to the
Recoveries from pensioners are permissible only under strict guidelines to prevent hardship, emphasizing protection for retired employees against unjust financial demands.
The Supreme Court's guidelines in Rafiq Masih apply to all stakeholders involved in pension payment and receipt, including disbursing banks and family pensioners, ensuring equitable and just recovery....
Unauthorized deductions from a pensioner's account without valid consent amount to a violation of principles of natural justice under Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution.
A retiree's undertaking to refund excess pension received legally binds them to repayment; recovery is permissible despite prior overpayment judgments when the retiree was aware of their pension comm....
Recovery of excess pension payments may be impermissible in certain situations, especially when it would be harsh or prejudicial to the beneficiary's survival.
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 iter....
Recovery of excess payments from pension dues post-retirement is impermissible without misrepresentation or fraud causing undue hardship.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
