Back
2016 Supreme(Guj) 1595
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
M.R. Shah, A.S. Supehia, JJ.
Savitakumari Janhvi Mishra - Appellant
Vs.
Union of India and Ors. - Respondents
Special Civil Application No. 12131 of 2016
Decided On : 09-08-2016
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Siraj R. Gori, Advocate
For the Respondents: Devang Vyas, Trusha K. Patel
The principle of iniquity and arbitrariness in recovery of excess payments, as established in various Supreme Court decisions, was central to the court's decision.
Headnote:
PENSION - Family Pension - - [Constitution of India, Article 226] - The court discussed the impugned order/letter No. CPPC/04465/78 dated 03.06.2016 and impugned action on the part of the authority for effecting recovery of amount from the account of the petitioner. The court quashed and set aside the impugned order and recovery made by the concerned bank and/or department.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a widow of an ex-army officer, sought to quash an order for recovery of overpaid pension and revision of family pension, claiming breach of natural justice and undue hardship.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the unilateral decision to revise the pension and effect recovery without giving the petitioner an opportunity to be heard was in breach of natural justice. It also held that the recovery of excess pension from the petitioner, a widow surviving on family pension, would cause undue hardship.
Issues: Breach of natural justice, undue hardship, entitlement to family pension
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the principle of iniquity and arbitrariness in recovery of excess payments, as established in various Supreme Court decisions, to quash the impugned order and recovery. It emphasized that the petitioner, as a widow of an ex-army officer, should not be subjected to undue hardship due to the recovery of excess pension.
Final Decision: The court quashed and set aside the impugned order/letter and recovery made by the concerned bank and/or department, directing them to refund the recovered amount to the petitioner. It also set aside the decision to revise the family pension and ordered the regular payment of family pension/pension to the petitioner.
M.R. Shah, J.
1. By way of the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has, as such, prayed for an appropriate writ, direction and order quashing and setting aside the impugned order/letter No. CPPC/04465/78 dated 03.06.2016 by the Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India asking the petitioner to deposit overpaid pension amount of Rs. 13,69,767/- within 7 days as well as impugned action on the part of the authority for effecting recovery of amount from the account of the petitioner. The petitioner has also prayed to quash and set aside the impugned order/letter No. CPPC/E-2427/87 dated 7.6.2016, by which, the Assistant General, State of Bank of India has informed Assistant Controller, office of the Principle Controller of Defence Accounts (Pensions) that amount of Rs. 2,73,911/- being the over payment of pension for the period from 07.09.2014 to 31.05.2016 shall be recovered from the petitioner pension by fixing monthly installments of Rs. 7400/- per month being 1/3rd of the monthly pension payable to her w.e.f. June 2016.
2. The facts leading to the present petition in nutshell are as under:
2.1. That the petitioner is widow of an ex-army officer. That her husband worked for the nation while serving with the Indian Army and worked on different fraught/places during the war with the Pakistan 17.06.1995 to 25.01.1966. That on attaining the age of superannuation, husband of the petitioner was relieved from the service w.e.f. 31.07.1989. According to the petitioner, while rendering the service in NCC and by keeping in mind the meritorious service rendered by the husband of the petitioner, he was promoted in the Rank of Major and was also given the selection grade of Lieutenant - Colonel. That he retired as Lieutenant Colonel on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.07.1989 from 10 Punjab Battalion NCC Ludhiana, Punjab as Officer Commanding (OC). That thereafter, the husband of the petitioner and the petitioner received the pension regularly till he passed away on 06.09.2014. That till the demise of the husband of the petitioner, he was receiving the regular pensionary benefits as per his entitlement. Thus, for almost a period of 25 years after the retirement, the authority paid the regular pension to him. It is the case of the petitioner that after the demise of her husband, she was not receiving the adequate amount towards family pension. Therefore, she approached the District Ex- Servicemen Association of Bhavnagar who started correspondence with the concerned department and a request was made to remit actual amount of family pension of the petitioner and to issue PPO as per 6th Pay Commission. It is the case of the petitioner that even thereafter also there were number of correspondences were made with the consent department including SBI, Branch at Bhavnagar whereby a request was made to carry out necessary check and rectify and also make payment of arrears if payable. According to the petitioner, all of sudden vide communication dated 3.6.2016 and 7.6.2016, which is corresponding between the State Bank of India and Assistant Controller, Office of the Principle Controller of Defence Accounts (Pensions), instead of refusing the family pension as requested by her, the petitioner is informed that her family pension is revised by Rs. 9967/- w.e.f. 07.09.2014 and therefore, there is over payment of pension of Rs. 2,73,911/- for the period from 07.09.2014 to 31.05.2016 which is liable to be recovered from her pension by fixing monthly installments.
2.2. Feeling and aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned communication dated 07.06.2016, by which, the petitioner is communicated the revision of his family pension of Rs. 9967/- per month and consequently the order of recovery being the alleged overpayment of pension, the petitioner has preferred present Special Civil Application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
3. Shri Siraj Gori, learned advocate for petitioner
