Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 46 (DEL)

V. P. Talwar v. Canara Bank

2009-01-14

KAILASH GAMBHIR

body2009
JUDGMENT Kailash Gambhir, J. 1. By way of this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner seeks directions against respondent No. 1 Bank for the restoration of payment of pension to him. 2. Brief facts for deciding thepresent petition are as under: The petitioner was working as Reporter with News Service Division of All India Radio under Respondent No. 1 and took voluntary retirement in the year 1986 after completion of thirty years of meritorious service. The petitioner is aggrieved by the acts of omission of the Respondents resulting in discontinuation of payment of pensionary benefits hitherto received by the Petitioner, without any justification whatsoever, despite repeated representations and reminders. The respondent No. 1 is the disbursing authority of pension of the Petitioner while Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are arrayed since the Petitioner was working under Respondent No. 2 who sanctioned the pensionary benefits to the Petitioner through respondent No. 3. The pension of the petitioner was sanctioned by respondent No. 3 and the same was intimated to the Pay & Accounts Officer, Delhi Administration vide order No. PAO/IRLA/Pension/2663-2665 dated 10th March 1988 payable with effect from 10.4.1986 and this was duly informed by rrespondent No. 3 to the petitioner vide their letter bearing reference No. PAC/IRLA/Pension/2675-76 dated 10th March 1988. The pension of the petitioner was being credited with Respondent No. 1 Bank and disbursed through his Savings Bank Account No. 1110 maintained with the said bank. Meanwhile, the petitioner shifted his residence to USA to join his children settled there and vide his letter dated 12.3.1989 furnished life certificate issued by the Consulate General of India, San Francisco, showing the fact of his being alive and requested the respondent No. 1 bank to continue to credit his pension in his savings bank account. Despite this, respondent No. 1 failed to credit pension and the petitioner again wrote letter dated 12.9.1991 and reminder dated 13.10.1996 to respondent No. 3. Finding no response to all the said communications, the Consulate General of India vide letters dated 9.6.1997 forwarded the complaint of the petitioner to the respondent No. 3 followed by reminder dated 12.9.1997. Despite this, respondent No. 1 failed to credit pension and the petitioner again wrote letter dated 12.9.1991 and reminder dated 13.10.1996 to respondent No. 3. Finding no response to all the said communications, the Consulate General of India vide letters dated 9.6.1997 forwarded the complaint of the petitioner to the respondent No. 3 followed by reminder dated 12.9.1997. The petitioner again sent representations in the form of letter dated 30.9.1998 to the respondents to take necessary steps for payment of his pension enclosing therein necessary documents indicating intimation of pensionary benefit to the Petitioner, viz., Pension Payment Order and Pay Bill etc. The respondent No. 3 was asked to look into the matter regarding non-payment of pension to the petitioner vide letter of Prasar Bharti dated 23.10.1998, however, no action was still taken and the petitioner was forced to write another letter dated 10.2.1999 to Prasar Bharti and in response to which vide letter dated 26.2.1999 the Prasar Bharti asked the petitioner to contact Sh. Bhupal Nanda, a Dy. Controller of Accounts and Pension Section in PAO, IRLA for doing the needful. The petitioner represented to Sh. Bhupal Nanda, a Dy. Controller of Accounts for necessary action for restoration of pension. The Prasar Bharti vide letter dated 12.5.1999 enclosed representations of the petitioner for necessary actions to Sh. Bhupal Nanda, Dy. Controller of Accounts. The Prime Minister’s Office vide letter dated 3rd Feb 2000 acknowledged the receipt of the letter of the petitioner dated 21.1.2000 and stated that the same was forwarded to concerned party for appropriate action. The Prasar Bharti vide letter dated 15.2.2000 wrote to respondent No. 1 calling upon the reason for not crediting pension to the account of the petitioner. The petitioner was surprised to receive a copy of a letter dated 23.2.2000 marked to him by respondent No. 3 in which he has been wrongly quoted as if the petitioner wanted to draw his pension in U.S.A. a request never ever made by the petitioner. Aggrieved with the said conduct of the respondent No. 1 the petitioner preferred the present writ petition. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the pension of the petitioner was sanctioned by respondent No. 3 vide order dated 10.3.1988 payable w.e.f. from 10.4.1986. Aggrieved with the said conduct of the respondent No. 1 the petitioner preferred the present writ petition. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the pension of the petitioner was sanctioned by respondent No. 3 vide order dated 10.3.1988 payable w.e.f. from 10.4.1986. Counsel further submits that the pension of the petitioner after the same was sanctioned was being credited with respondent No. 1 bank and disbursed to the saving bank account No. 1110 of the petitioner maintained in the same bank. Counsel further submits that since 1988 the respondent No. 1 has not been crediting the amount of the pension to the saving bank account of the petitioner although, the amount of pension has been duly disbursed by the employer, respondent No. 2 herein. Counsel further submits that petitioner is settled in San Francisco, USA since 1989 and the petitioner has always been forwarding the letter through his counsel every year to show that he was alive, and in particular, letter dated 12.3.1989 forwarding certificate issued by the Consulate General of India, San Franscisco regarding his being alive and even subsequent thereto also reminders were sent but the amount of pension was not being credited in the account of the petitioner since the year 1988. Counsel further submits that the petitioner even had presented himself in person before the bank on 7.2.2007 and the life certificate dated 8.2.2007 to this effect has been issued by the bank certifying that the concerned official of the bank had personally seen the petitioner present in person being alive on that date. Based on these submissions counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has unnecessarily been deprived of his pension amount. 4. Opposing the petition counsel for respondent No. 1 states that the petitioner failed to attach the life certificate along with his covering letter dated 10.2.1989. Counsel thus states that under Pension Scheme every year the petitioner has to furnish a life certificate and in the absence of which the respondent No. 1 bank is not obliged to credit the amount of the pension in his account. Respondent No. 1 has also placed reliance on the judgment reported in : (1972) I LLJ 528 SC Anand Swarup Singh v. State of Punjab to contend that the present writ petition claiming arrears of pension w.e.f. 1988 is hit by the law of limitation. 5. Counsel for the respondent Nos. Respondent No. 1 has also placed reliance on the judgment reported in : (1972) I LLJ 528 SC Anand Swarup Singh v. State of Punjab to contend that the present writ petition claiming arrears of pension w.e.f. 1988 is hit by the law of limitation. 5. Counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 , however, does not oppose the present writ petition and states that the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have already disbursed the amount of pension with the bank for ultimate transfer of the same to the account of the petitioner. I have heard counsel for the parties at considerable length and have gone through the record. 6. It is no more in dispute that the petitioner is still alive as he had personally presented himself before the Bank and on 8.2.2007 the bank has given a life certificate to this effect. In catena of judgments the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the amount of pension is not a bounty or not a matter of gratis to be paid by the employer upon his sweet will and therefore, every employee after superannuation has a vested right to claim the amount of pension from his employer. In this regard in Deokinandan Prasad v. State of Bihar : (1971)I LLJ 557 SC , the Hon’ble Apex Court observed as under: 31. The matter again came up before a Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in K.R. Erry v. State of Punjab. The High Court had to consider the nature of the right of an officer to get pension. The majority quoted with approval the principles laid down in the two earlier decisions of the same High Court, referred to above, and held that the pension is not to be treated as a bounty payable on the sweet will and pleasure of the Government and that the right to superannuation pension including its amount is a valuable right vesting in a government servant. It was further held by the majority that even though an opportunity had already been afforded to the officer on an earlier occasion for showing cause against the imposition of penalty for lapse or misconduct on his part and he has been found guilty, nevertheless, when a cut is sought to be imposed in the quantum of pension payable to an officer on the basis of misconduct already proved against him, a further opportunity to show-cause in that regard must be given to the officer. This view regarding the giving of further opportunity was expressed by the learned Judges on the basis of the relevant Punjab Civil Service Rules. But the learned Chief Justice in his dissenting judgment was not prepared to agree with the majority that under such circumstances a further opportunity should be given to an officer when a reduction in the amount of pension payable is made by the State. It is not necessary for us in the case on hand to consider the question whether before taking action by way of reducing or denying the pension on the basis of disciplinary action already taken, a further notice to show-cause should be given to an officer. That question does not arise for consideration before us. Nor are we concerned with the further question regarding the procedure, if any, to be adopted by the authorities before reducing or withholding the pension for the first time after the retirement of an officer. Hence we express no opinion regarding the views expressed by the majority and the minority Judges in the above Punjab High Court decision on this aspect. But we agree with the view of the majority when it has approved its earlier decision that pension is not a bounty payable on the sweet will and pleasure of the Government and that, on the other hand, the right to pension is a valuable right vesting in a government servant. 7. In the present case no dispute has been raised by the employer, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein, about the entitlement of the petitioner to claim amount of pension, rather the stand taken by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 is that they have already disbursed the amount of pension with the respondent No. 1 bank. 7. In the present case no dispute has been raised by the employer, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein, about the entitlement of the petitioner to claim amount of pension, rather the stand taken by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 is that they have already disbursed the amount of pension with the respondent No. 1 bank. The respondent No. 1 has raised a controversy contending that the life certificate was not attached by the petitioner in the year 1989 alongwith the letter sent by the petitioner and thereafter as well and therefore, there was no obligation upon respondent No. 1 bank to credit the amount of pension in the account of the petitioner unless the necessary life certificate was furnished by the petitioner. This fact has been disputed by the petitioner as he has placed on record a copy of the letter dated 12.3.21989 along with which the life certificate was stated to have been attached by the petitioner. There is no reason to disbelieve the said letter which clearly shows that some letter was attached along with the same. Even subsequent thereto the petitioner had forwarded the life certificates and even personally presented himself before the bank on 7.2.2007. 8. Considering the aforesaid circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioner has unnecessarily been deprived of his pension amount for such a long period and in this manner the petitioner has been subjected to harassment as he was not in a position to personally peruse the matter being settled abroad. The approach of the respondent No. 1 bank can not be appreciated as the respondent No. 1 was merely to credit the amount of pension in the account of the petitioner after the said amount was disbursed by the employer. 9. In view of the above position, it is directed to the respondent No. 1 bank to immediately transfer the entire pension amount w.e.f. 1988 in the saving bank account of the petitioner as is being maintained by him with the bank with upto date interest @ 12% p.a. on the arrears of pension amount illegally withheld by the bank. 10. With these directions, the writ petition is disposed of.