Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 474 (PAT)

Basant Narayan Sinha v. Stete Of Bihar

2000-03-27

RADHA MOHAN PRASAD

body2000
Judgment 1. The petitioner in this writ petition is aggrieved by the order of the Accountant General, contained in letter no. Pen-5-Sah-1751 dated 12th March, 1999 (Annexure 6) and the consequential order issued by the Assistant General Manager of the State Bank of India, contained in Annexure 1, whereby and whereunder a sum of Rs. 1,33,552-has been sought to be recovered from him on account of alleged excess payment made to him by way of dearness allowance and interim relief on his own pension paid to him in addition to the family pension received by him on account of death of his wife, who was also an employee of the State Government. 2. Earlier this matter was adiourned on several occasions and finally vide order dated 10.12.1999 this Court, as a last indulgence, granted three weeks time to the State to file counter affidavit with a clear indication that if no counter affidavit is fried, the writ application shaii be disposed of on the averments made in the writ petition. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Accountant General, Bihar, Patna as well as on behalf of the State Bank of India (respondent no. 6). 3. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Accountant General it is only stated that the answering respondent intimated the Treasury Officer, Patna Secretariat with a copy to the Bank (respondent no. 6) and also to the petitioner to the effect that any amount found to be paid in excess may be adjusted at their own level and the answering respondent is not concerned, vide answering respondent letter no. Pen-5-G-1750-52 dated 12.3.1999. 4. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no. 6 it is stated that the petitioner was paid family pension including dearness allowances in excess to which he is entitled as double payment of dearness allowance is not payable to a person, who is drawing pension on his own as well as family pension. It is also stated that while availing the payment of family pension through the Bank, the petitioner gave undertaking in the prescribed format and duly signed by him that in case of any excess payment, the same may be recovered from him, vide his undertaking dated 15.5.1990. 5. It is also stated that while availing the payment of family pension through the Bank, the petitioner gave undertaking in the prescribed format and duly signed by him that in case of any excess payment, the same may be recovered from him, vide his undertaking dated 15.5.1990. 5. The petitioner in paragraph 11 of the writ petition has stated that when he did not receive any instruction from respondent no. 6, he contacted the office of the Accountant General (respondentno. 6) where he was informed of only one Circular of the Finance Department, Government of Bihar i.e., Circular No. 3556 dated 9.5.1991 which does not cover the case of the petitioner as the said circular is related to the case of the pensioner who either has been re-employed or employed and in that condition only deamess relief becomes inadmissible if D.A. etc. are paid on his salary on account of his re-employment/employment. It is further stated that the petitioner is completely an unemployed pensioner shouldering the responsibility of the family members. A photo copy of the said Circular No. 3556 dated 9.5.1991 has been annexed as Annexure 5. 6. This Court expresses displeasure against the State and its officials, who have not bothered to respond to the notice of this writ petition, which was served long back on 30th April, 1999 nor this Court has been given any assistance either from the State side or from the Accountant General as to under what circumstances/provision the said recovery has been sought to be made. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents has failed to point out from the said Government circular (Annexure 5) that a person receiving pension on his dearness allowance and interim relief on his own pension will not be entitled to receive dearness allowance and interim relief on the family pension received by him on the death of his/her spouse either as a Government servant or after retirement. The said Circular, contained in Annexure 5, only provides that in case of pensioner, who is either employed or reemployed and receives dearness relief will not be entitled for the said relief on the family pension received by him on account of death of his/her spouse while in Government service or after retirement. 8. Under such circumstances, in my opinion, the impugned orders, contained in Annexures 6 and 1, cannot be sustained and they are, accordingly quashed. 9. 8. Under such circumstances, in my opinion, the impugned orders, contained in Annexures 6 and 1, cannot be sustained and they are, accordingly quashed. 9. However, learned counsel for the petitioner accepts that recovery with respect to difference of basic pension from 17.2.1997 to 31.1.1998 as mentioned at item no. 6 of Annexure 1 is recoverable and the bank may recover the said amount. 10. Accordingly, this Court directs the respondents to redeposit/refund the amount, if any, deducted/recovered from the account of the petitioner. 11. The writ application is, thus, allowed, but without costs.