Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 638 (MP)

Union Of India v. Leela

2003-04-30

BHAWANI SINGH, S.L.JAIN

body2003
JUDGMENT : S. L. JAIN, J. Invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, petitioners have prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of ceritorari for quashment of the order dated 1-11-2002, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in O. A. No. 860/2000 by which the appellants have been directed to grant the benefit as offered by letter dated 27-10-1972 (Annexure A. 3) to the respondents within a period of 3 months provided she deposited the amount asked for. 2. A brief resume of the facts required to be stated for disposal of the writ petition is as follows. Late Shri Durjan husband of the petitioner was SS fitter of HIRA at Bhunar, District Mirajpur within the jurisdiction of northern railways. He died in harness. Late Durjan was a member of State Railway Provident Fund Scheme. Petitioner No. 3 issued a letter dated 27-10-1972 informing the respondent that the railway board has decided to allow the pensionary benefits along with the benefit of the family pension scheme, 1964 in lieu of State Railway Provident Fund Benefits. In case the respondent desires to opt for the same she may give her option. It was also informed to the respondent that she will be entitled to get DCRG of Rs. 1397/- in lump sum and monthly family pension @ Rs. 64/- from 1-8-1974 to 31-7-1974 and thereafter @ Rs. 40 per month. This communication further stated that in case the respondent opts for advantage of pension rules in lieu of State Railway Provident Fund Rules she will have to deposit Rs. 1552.00 being the excess amount of total of State Contribution to the Provident Fund (Part) and P. F. bonus. It was also stated that the option and money receipt of deposit of Rs. 1552.00 should be received within a period of one month from the date of the receipt of the letter. 3. Respondent submitted a letter dated 16-11-1972 (Annexure A.4) in which it was stated by her that she has no means of livelihood and was suffering from very abject poverty, therefore, it is not possible for her to make a refund of Rs. 1552.00 in lumpsum. She prayed that payment of gratuity and pension to her has become due and the same can be adjusted towards the amount of Rs. 1552.00. 1552.00 in lumpsum. She prayed that payment of gratuity and pension to her has become due and the same can be adjusted towards the amount of Rs. 1552.00. This prayer of the respondent was rejected as per letter dated 5/6-12-1972. It was informed to the respondent that rules do not permit the adjustment suggested by her and she was again advised to deposit amount of Rs. 1552.00 in any booking office of the northern railways. 4. It may be mentioned here that no time limit for deposit of the amount has been mentioned in this letter. Thereafter, the respondent went on pursuing the matter. She made number of representations to different authorities including the President of India, Prime Minister, of India and General Manager of Northern Railways. These representations are Annexure A. 6 to A. 10. The respondents wrote my letters to the petitioner No. 3 for redressal of her grievance. As a result of repeated requests of the respondent to different authorities certain authorities directed Appellant No. 3 to redress the grievance of the respondent by different letters Annexure A. 22 to A. 25. Despite instruction from the higher authorities the petitioner No. 3 did not bother to redress the grievances of the respondent. As the pension scheme was benefical to the respondent and she was suffering recurring loss and the authorities were not accepting her prayer to adjust the amount of Rs. 1552-00 in the arrears of pension, the frustrated respondent requested by letter dated 14-5-1991 to the respondents No. 3 that she may be allowed to deposit the money. 5. Since the matter was not disposed of, in April 1998 the respondent approached concerned section of respondent No. 3 where she was told by the officials that the form earlier submitted by her contained certain anamolies, therefore, a fresh form and its enclosures should be submitted duly counter signed by two gazetted officers. The endeavour of the illiterate widow who is sweeper by caste should be appreciated that she got prepared the revised form according to the directions of the petitioner No. 3 along with necessary documents counter signed by two gazetted officers and submitted them to the office of the petitioner No. 3 vide letter dated 13-5-1998. After the submission of the revised form, no communication was received by the respondent from the office of petitioner No. 3 but the respondent did not loose patience. After the submission of the revised form, no communication was received by the respondent from the office of petitioner No. 3 but the respondent did not loose patience. She again sent a notice on 7-4-2000. Annexure A. 29 through Advocate to petitioner No. 3 with an endorsement to petitioner No. 2 to redress her grievance within a period of 2 months but no action in the matter was taken. 6. Undaunted by the failure of her sustained efforts the respondent filed the Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The application was contested by the petitioners. 7. Instead of having sympathy with a frustrated illiterate widow and giving long pending relief, to the respondent, petitioners combatted the application and submitted the return stating that the husband of the respondent was C. P. F. beneficiary and did not opt for pension scheme though several opportunities were provided to him. The family pension was admissible to the respondent on submission of option form by her. The refund of the amount of contribution towards SRPF scheme was the pre-requisite for the grant of family pension. Since the respondent did not refund the amount of Government contribution, family pension was not sanctioned to her. 8. A Division Bench of Tribunal allowed the application filed by the respondent and directed the respondent No. 3 to grant benefit of family pension as offered by letter dated 27-10-1992 to the applicant provided she deposits the amount even now. The respondents were directed to grant benefit within a period of 3 months. Regarding interest, the Tribunal has directed that no interest was payable either to the applicant or to the respondents. 9. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondents (petitioners) have filed this writ petition. 10. We have heard Shri S. K. Mukherjee, learned counsel for the petitioners. Assailing the order of the Tribunal he submitted that the Tribunal has seriously erred in law in granting relief to the respondent, though she was not entitled to get the same. It is further urged by him that the Tribunal has failed to appreciate that the original application was filed by the respondent after inordinate delay of 28 years. Such a hopelessly barred claim ought not to have been allowed by the Tribunal. The contention cannot be accepted. It is further urged by him that the Tribunal has failed to appreciate that the original application was filed by the respondent after inordinate delay of 28 years. Such a hopelessly barred claim ought not to have been allowed by the Tribunal. The contention cannot be accepted. An illiterate widow belonging to sweeper community went on pursuing the matter right from the very beginning, it cannot be said that her claim is time barred. Even otherwise in a welfare State, the Government should not raise technical objection of limitation and should not defeat a valid claim. Law of Limitation bars the remedy but does not destroy the right. Even when a claim is barred by limitation the right survives. Where a legitimate right of the Government employee exists, Government of Welfare State should not oppose the claim, therefore, when the Tribunal has allowed the application, we do not consider it proper to interfere in this writ petition of the ground of limitation. 11. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners next contended that the husband of the respondent who was a member of SRPF scheme, did not opt for the pension scheme and respondent also refused to abide by the terms and conditions of the letter dated 27-10-1972, therefore, she is not entitled for the pension as claimed by her. The argument is fallacious. The respondent never refused to submit option form on the contrary, she submitted the option form and expressly requested that she opts for the pension. She further requested that the amount of Rs. 1552.00 which was required to be deposited by her may be adjusted from arrears of her pension payable to her and residual amount be paid to her. This was a quite fair offer. The respondent belongs to down trodden community. Due to death of her husband she was struggling for her survival. She has no other source of livelihood and facing abject poverty. In the circumstances her proposal for adjustment of Rs. 1552.00 from the arreas of pension was quite fair and it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that she did not opt for family pension. Rule 2816 (1)-R-II provides as under :- "Recovery of excess payment :- Should the amount of pension granted to railway servant be afterwards found to be in excess of that to which he is entitled, he shall be called upon to refund such excess. Rule 2816 (1)-R-II provides as under :- "Recovery of excess payment :- Should the amount of pension granted to railway servant be afterwards found to be in excess of that to which he is entitled, he shall be called upon to refund such excess. For this purpose the railway servant concerned shall be served with a notice by the sanctioning authority, requiring him to refund the excess payment within a period of two months from the date of receipt by him of the notice. If he fails adjustment of excess payment may be made from future payment of pension in one or more instalments". Because the Rule requires that if any excess amount is paid it would be adjusted from the future payment of pension instalments, therefore, the amount ought to have been adjusted from the pension due. The amount due was certain more than the amount which was required to be deposited by the respondent. 12. Pension to which a government servant is entitled is not a bounty. It is earned after a long service. It should not have been refused on technical grounds. Therefore, the tribunal was right in allowing the application and directing the petitioners to pay the pension. The contention that the respondent's husband did not opt for the pension scheme cannot be accepted. 13. For the reasons stated above, we do not find any merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. The petitioners are directed to grant the benefit of family pension to the respondent in terms of letter dated 27-10-1972. The respondent shall deposit the required amount of Rs. 1552/- and even if she fails to deposit the same, the petitioners shall adjust this amount from the arrears of pension payable to the respondent and shall make the payment of balance amount without any further delay.