IMPORTANT POINT
Pension is a statutory right and cannot be withheld without due process and authority, as established by relevant regulations.

JUDGMENT :

Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.

Petitioner was enrolled as Soldier in Brigade of Guards, on 30.11.1982. After rendering more than 18 years of satisfactory Army service, he retired as Nayak on 30.06.2001. Upon retirement from Brigade of Guards, petitioner opened Pension Account No.11795437352 with State Bank of India, Almora Branch and, according to him, he started receiving pension regularly. Petitioner was having another Pension Account No.20048462406, in which he was getting pension for the services rendered by him as Sepoy in Defence Security Corps (D.S.C.), where he was re-employed between 15.03.2002 to 30.06.2018. Both these Pension Accounts were frozen by the Manager, State Bank of India, Almora Branch. Petitioner approached Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Lucknow by filing Original Application No.157 of 2020, seeking the following reliefs :

“(i) To direct the respondents to unfreeze forthwith applicant’s Pension Account Nos. 20048462406 and 11795437352 maintained by him with Respondent No. 6, with a further direction to the respondents, particularly Respondents 5 and 6 to permit the applicant to withdraw the money from these accounts as per his wish and requirement.

(ii) To direct the respondents to supply the copies of the following documents to the applicant:-

(a) A copy of the letter which had led respondents 5 and 6 to conclude that the applicant was fraudulently drawing the service pensions from the above pension accounts.

(b) A copy of the inquiry/investigation report on the basis of which such opinion was formed by the said respondents 5 and 6 against the applicant.

(c) A copy of the order by which the above pension accounts of the applicant had been frozen/put on hold.

(d) A copy of the relevant provisions of law under which the above action of freezing/ putting on hold the above pension accounts of the applicant had been taken by the respondents.

(e) A copy of the writ petition which has been allegedly filed in the High Court at Nainital against the applicant.

(iii) To award the exemplary cost to the applicant as against the respondents, particularly respondents 5 and 6 if it is found by the Hon’ble Tribunal that the impugned action of freezing/putting on hold the above pension accounts of the applicant, had been taken by them without authority of law.

(iv) To award interest @ 18% p.a. on the amount which was illegally frozen/ put on hold by the respondents from the date of such action till the date of actual unfreezing of these accounts.”

2. His Original Application, however, was dismissed with cost of Rs.50,000/- vide judgment dated 06.10.2021. Relevant extract of the impugned judgment passed by Armed Forces Tribunal is reproduced below :

“23. The school leaving certificate filed by the applicant shows that he was admitted in school in the year 1970 in Class-1 and left the school in 1976 after having passed class-5. In another original application O.A. No 289 of 2018 filed by the younger brother Shyam Singh applicant of that case has filed copy of his school certificate and it shows that applicant’s younger brother passed his School in the year 1981. If applicant’s younger brother Shyam Singh passed High School in 1981, this means he would have passed Class-V in 1976. It is not applicant’s case that he and his younger brother both passed Class-V in the same year i.e. 1976. If both applicant and his younger brother did indeed pass Class – V in same year, it gives rise to only one possibility that School Leaving Certificate which applicant has filed is of his younger brother Shyam Singh, and not his. This supports the respondents’ case that applicant got enrolment in Indian Army and thereafter in DSC service using School Leaving Certificate of his younger brother Shyam Singh and this was the reason that name and date of birth of his younger brother got recorded in his service records which was intentionally done by the applicant for the reasons best known to him. Applicant cannot claim innocence saying a wrong was