Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 185 (PAT)

Jamuna Murmu v. Union Of India

2003-02-17

R.M.PRASAD

body2003
Judgment R.M.Prasad, J. 1. In this writ petition, petitioner is aggrieved by stoppage of payment of family pension from January, 1997. 2. In short, the relevant facts are that the petitioner claims to be the widow of late Baijnath Kisku, who was a sepoy in Indian Military Service and died in the year 1957, Family pension was sanctioned to the petitioner in the year 1962 and since then she continued to get the same regularly till December, 1996. However, from January, 1997, her family pension was suddenly stopped, whereupon she on enquiry learnt that the treasury was unable to make payment of pension in absence of disbursal copy of P.P.O. No. F/304/62 (T.S. No. 285 A). She learnt that the Treasury Officer, Bhagalpur vide his letter No. 2486 dated 2-1-1999 had requested Chief Controller of Defence Accounts (Pension), Allahabad (U.P.) for issuance of duplicate copy of PRO and also reminder vide letter No. 2333 dated 4-9-2000 (Annexure 1). It appears that the petitioner also visited the office of the C.D.A. Allahabad and inquired about the said letter and requested them to issue duplicate PPO, but, she was told that they had not received any letter from the Treasury Officer, Bhagalpur. However, Assistant Accounts Officer, C.D.A. Allahabad vide his letter No. S. PPO39/F/2000 dated 13-11-2000 wrote to the Treasury Officer, Bhagalpur that in absence of loss certificate issuance of duplicate PPO was not possible and, thus, requested the Treasury Officer to send the same with details, such as, name of the pensioner, number of PPO and year of its issuance with loss certificate for issuance of duplicate copy of the same, However, having failed to get redressal from the said two authorities, petitioner filed the present writ application. 3. After this Court took serious view of the matter and also awarded cost of Rs. 1,000.00 to be paid by the Chief-Controller of Defence Accounts, Allahabad from his pocket because there was no response from him to the notice of this Court, the Chief Controller of Defence Accountants issued duplicate PPO on 9-12-2002 and on that basis the Treasury Officer calculated the entire dues up to November, 2002 and on 19-12-2002 produced a Bank draft of Rs. 42,609.00 payable to the petitioner, which was handed over to the learned Counsel for the petitioner. 42,609.00 payable to the petitioner, which was handed over to the learned Counsel for the petitioner. However, considering the gross lapses on the part of the authorities concerned, this Court found that the matter requires consideration for payment of penal interest to the petitioner. Accordingly, the matter was adjourned to enable the Chief Controller of Defence Accounts to file counter-affidavit. The matter was again adjourned on the request of the learned Counsel for the Union of India, whereupon a counter-affidavit on behalf of Union of India and its official (Respondent Nos. 1 & 2) has been filed on 20-12-2002, On the request of the Union of India, the matter was further adjourned on 20-1-2003 and on 27-1-2003, learned Counsel for the Union of India stated that the said respondents do not intend to file any further counter-affidavit and, accordingly, the matter was heard and the order was reserved. 4. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of Treasury Officer, Bhagalpur (Respondent No. 5) it is stated that certificate of loss of disbursers portion of PPO of the petitioner was sent to the office of the Accounts Officer (Pension), Principal Controller of Defence Account (Pension), Draupdi Ghat, Allahabad under letter No. 2486 dated 2-1-1999 vide registered cover bearing No. 4958 dated 8-1-1999. He was further stated that altogether three such certificates were sent to CDA (P), Allahabad under one registered letter each having number as 2484, 2485 and 2486 and in support of it has annexed Photostat extract copy of the despatch register as Annexure A. The said Annexure A also shows that the loss certificate with respect to one Smt. Manorama Devi issued vide letter No. 2484 and with respect to Girja Tiwary issued vide letter No. 2485 and with respect to the petitioner vide letter No. 2486 were despatched under one registered cover bearing No. 4958 dated 8-1-1999. Photostat copy of the receipt is also there in Annexure A. As against the said plea in paragraph 9, it is stated that duplicate copy of PPO of two persons i.e. Manorama Devi and Girja Tiwary were issued, but with respect to the petitioner it was not issued despite reminder. 5. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of Union of India and its official (Respondent Nos. 5. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of Union of India and its official (Respondent Nos. 1 & 2) it is admitted that request was made to them for sending duplicate copy of PPO on 4-9-2000 and this caused delay of more than three years. However, it is contended that they are not responsible for causing delay. It is stated that the Treasury Officer never wrote that certificate with regard to loss of PPO in respect of the petitioner is in process or was sent to the Chief Controller as has been stated in his letter dated 4-9-2000. In support of this, it is stated that no proper in this regard is available in the office of the respondent No. 1. It is, thus, stated that the Treasury Officer was aware of the fact that duplicate copy of PPO is issued only on a definite certificate of loss by the Treasury Officer. However, respondent Nos. 1 & 2 have not disputed about the issuance of duplicate PPO with respect to Manorama Devi and Girja Tiwary with respect to whom Annexure A shows that request for petitioner was also made along with the request for them under one registered cover. If there was no loss certificate attached with respect to the petitioner under the said registered cover, the Respondent-Chief Controller of Defence Accounts should have immediately asked for it, but, in absence of response from them shows that there has been gross lapses on the part of the Chief Controller of Defence Accounts from January, 1999. However, in absence of any explanation of the Treasury Officer for the period prior to January, 1999 i.e. since January, 1997 to December, 1998 there has been lapses on the part of the Treasury Officer, Bhagalpur. The present Treasury Officer, Bhagalpur has stated that he joined his said office only on 15-10-2001 and has furnished the names of the officers posted during the period January, 1997 to December 1998. According to him Sri Suresh Prasad was posted as Treasury Officer from 1-1-1997 to 16-7-1997 and Sr. N.K. Sahay from 16-7-1997 to 19-1-2001. 6. It is really unfortunate that the Treasury Officer, Bhagalpur (respondent No. 5) as well as Chief Controller of Defence Accounts and Accounts Officer, Controller of Defence Accounts (Pension), Allahabad (respondent Nos. According to him Sri Suresh Prasad was posted as Treasury Officer from 1-1-1997 to 16-7-1997 and Sr. N.K. Sahay from 16-7-1997 to 19-1-2001. 6. It is really unfortunate that the Treasury Officer, Bhagalpur (respondent No. 5) as well as Chief Controller of Defence Accounts and Accounts Officer, Controller of Defence Accounts (Pension), Allahabad (respondent Nos. 2 & 3 respectively) have dealt with the case of a widow of sepoy of Indian Military Service in such a casual manner which has kept her deprived of the family pension for almost five years for no fault of her. In my opinion, such inaction on the part of the said authorities are most inhuman and deserves strong deprecation besides awarding of penal interest and cost to be realised from the concerned erring Officer. 7. Accordingly, this Court finds it to be a fit case for awarding penal interest of 15% per annum over the due amount payable to the petitioner on account of family pension which shall be calculated and paid by the State for the period January, 1997 to December, 1998 and by the Union of India for the period January, 1999 to December, 2002 when payment has been made besides a cost of Rs. 2,000.00 , Rs. 1,000.00 to be paid by the State and Rs. 1,000.00 to be paid by the Union of India, and, thus, directs the Chief Controller of Defence Accounts (respondent No. 2) as well as State of Bihar and the Treasury Officer, Bhagalpur (respondent Nos. 4 & 5) to pay the amount of penal interest and cost as per the above within two weeks of the receipt/production of a copy of this order. It is made clear that the amount, on interest and cost shall be recovered from the erring Official after notice to them, but, the delay in recovery of the amount from them shall not come in the way of making payment of the same to the petitioner within the aforesaid time. In case of non-compliance, the erring official will be liable to pay further cost of Rs. 1000.00 from his pocket and the petitioner will be at liberty to file tow pages affidavit for revival and for taking appropriate action against the erring Officer. 8. This writ application is, thus, disposed of.