Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 463 (ALL)

SHANTI DEVI v. UNION OF INDIA

2018-02-21

SIDDHARTH

body2018
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Siddharth, J.—Heard Sri Arvind Srivastava III, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Santosh Kumar Mishra and Sri P.N.Tripathi, learned Counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioner has filed the above noted writ petition praying for quashing of the orders dated 19.9.2013 and 9.10.2013, issued by Senior Account Officer and Pay & Accounts Officer, Central Pension Accounting Office, Government of India, New Delhi, direction for granting of entire recovery proceedings initiated by the Allahabad Bank Tharvai Branch, Allahabad against the petitioner and direction for refund of the amount already recovered from the pension of the deceased husband of the petitioner and also from the family pension of the petitioner alongwith interest has also been sought. 3. The husband of the petitioner, late Ramphal was working as “Picker” in Food Corporation of India Office at Allahabad, he superannuated on 31.7.1995 and ultimately died on 30.7.2014. After the death of her husband, the petitioner discovered that the pension of her husband, which was Rs. 25,668/- in May, 2014 was reduced to Rs. 8,405/- in June, 2014 and Rs. 10,167/- in July, 2014 without any notice or opportunity of hearing. After various applications under the Right to Information Act to the Regional Manager, Food Corporation of India, Finance Controller of the Food Ministry, Principal Accounts Officer, Allahabad Bank, etc., when no information was given to the petitioner, he filed a Writ Petition No. 2632 of 2016, before this Court, which was finally disposed off vide order dated 21.1.2016, directing the Regional Manager of the Corporation to consider the grievance of the petitioner and passed reasoned and speaking order. Accordingly, the Regional Manager of the Corporation has passed an order dated 11.5.2016 referring to the impugned orders dated 19.9.2013 and 9.10.2013 of the Senior Account Officer and Pay & Accounts Officer Central Pension Accounting Office, Government of India, New Delhi. 4. The respondent No. 2, Food Corporation of India, Allahabad has filed its Counter-affidavit stating that on the basis of recommendation of Vth Pay Commission, Basic Salary of deceased husband of the petitioner had been revised and put in the revised pay scale of Rs. 4620 - 100-5120 - 120 - 656 - 125 - 6685 - 130 - 6815 - 140 - 8215, w.e.f., 1.1.1997. Again his Pay Scale has been revised and he has been put in pay scale of 8900-22100 w.e.f., 1.1.2007. 4620 - 100-5120 - 120 - 656 - 125 - 6685 - 130 - 6815 - 140 - 8215, w.e.f., 1.1.1997. Again his Pay Scale has been revised and he has been put in pay scale of 8900-22100 w.e.f., 1.1.2007. The competent authority revised his pension to Rs. 3648/- w.e.f., 1.1.1997 and Rs. 8451/- w.e.f., 1.1.2007. The family pension of the petitioner has been fixed at Rs. 4490/- w.e.f., 1.1.2014. D.A. Pattern Pension was not covered under 6th Pay Commission and excess payment of pension was made to the petitioner, which is liable to be recovered. The recovery was started in the life time of the husband of the petitioner but he never objected the same. Office of Pay & Accounts (Department of Food), New Delhi is the competent authority in relation to fixation and disbursement of pension. 5. Another Counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 stating that vide order dated 9.7.1997, Senior Accounts Officer, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food & Public Distribution has fixed basic pension of Rs. 1040/- of the deceased husband of the petitioner. Later, it revised the pension vide order dated 17.5.2001 at the rate of Rs. 2025/- w.e.f., 1.8.1995 per month. The Basic Pension of the petitioner from 1.1.1997 to 21.12.2006 was revised to Rs. 3648/-. Late Ramphal did not provide his Life Certificate from 2001 onward, therefore, his pension was not revised and the Bank wrongly fixed the same and paid much more than his entitlement. He submitted his Jeevit Praman Patra only on 31.7.2013, The recovery from the petitioner is in accordance with law. 6. The respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6, Allahabad Bank have filed their Counter-affidavit stating that the petitioner’s husband was employee of Food Corporation of India and attained the age of superannuation on 31.7.1995 from the post of Picker and was receiving pension through Allahabad Bank Tharwai Branch, Allahabad. The modified/revised basic pension has arrived at Rs. 8451/- w.e.f., 1.1.2007 including commuted value as per the Modified Authority Letter (PPO) No. PAO/Food/P&F/IDA/Rev-2007/4483/2422 dated 19.9.2013 and dated 9.10.2013, issued by respondent No. 3, sending copy to us including the employer respondent No. 2 and, also, copy to the petitioner’s husband. The Modified Authority Letter (PPO) dated 19.9.2013 and dated 9.10.2013 has attained the finality. 8451/- w.e.f., 1.1.2007 including commuted value as per the Modified Authority Letter (PPO) No. PAO/Food/P&F/IDA/Rev-2007/4483/2422 dated 19.9.2013 and dated 9.10.2013, issued by respondent No. 3, sending copy to us including the employer respondent No. 2 and, also, copy to the petitioner’s husband. The Modified Authority Letter (PPO) dated 19.9.2013 and dated 9.10.2013 has attained the finality. Thus, proper opportunity was given to the petitioner’s husband to justify his claim on excess pension and no one can be permitted to usurp the public money. Late Ram Phal, the employee of the FCI, was erroneously drawing pension @ Rs. 12834/- till June, 2014 though his revised basic pension was Rs. 8451/- w.e.f. 1.1.2007 (the date of implementation of 6th Pay Commission Report). The pensioner employee died on 30.7.2014. After the detection of the irregularity & full opportunity to the pensioner employee to justify his excess pension, the deduction of Rs. 6000/- started since June, 2014 in the life time of the employee Ram Phal, vide pension payment sheet & the letter dated 11.5.2016 of the FCI, the employer (Annexure No. 13 of the writ petition) in this regard. As per the banking norms and as per RBI Circular No. RBI/2015-16/63 dated 1.7.2015 on the basis of undertaking given by the pensioner the Bank has right to adjust the excess payments made to the pension account holder. Excess payment had already been made to the petitioner’s husband due to incorrect formula/calculation. In the statutory audits the irregularities were detected and the FCI, the employer issued the Modified Authority Letter (PPO) No. PAO/Food/P&F/IDA/Rev-2007/4483/2422 dated 19.9.2013 and dated 9.10.2013 to the pensioner/husband of the petitioner. It transpires that the husband of the petitioner was fully satisfied by the revised PPOs as the same had reached to the finality. It is further submitted that due to revised PPOs the total pension of the employee Ram Phal in June, 2014 was reduced to Rs. 15922/- as per his entitlement and after deduction of Rs. 6,000/- for adjustment of excess payment plus Rs. 517/- the net paid pension was Rs. 9405/-. In July, 2014 Gross Pension Payment was Rs. 16167/- and after deduction of Rs. 6000/- for adjustment of excess payment the net paid pension was Rs. 10167/-. The employee/petitioner was fully aware of the revised PPOs & the deduction to be made to adjust the excess payments on which he, also, fetched the interest. 9405/-. In July, 2014 Gross Pension Payment was Rs. 16167/- and after deduction of Rs. 6000/- for adjustment of excess payment the net paid pension was Rs. 10167/-. The employee/petitioner was fully aware of the revised PPOs & the deduction to be made to adjust the excess payments on which he, also, fetched the interest. In view of the revised PPOs there was no illegality in payment of the pension to the pensioner Ram Phal. However, the bank is working like a mediator/agent between the employer/FCI and employee/the pensioner as well as husband of petitioner. The Bank is bound by the bankng norms & the orders and directions of the employer in respect of any payment to be made to its employee. During the life time of the pensioner Ram Phal the deduction was @ Rs. 6000/- per month but after his death, the deduction has been reduced to @ Rs. 3000/- per month from the family pension to adjust the excess payments. The Gross Pension Payment was Rs. 9645/- in family pension. The net paid was Rs. 6645/- while total deduction was Rs. 3000/- which has been stopped, now in view of the interim order of this Hon’ble Court. In view of the principles of general lien of a bankers and right of set off, undertaking of the pensioner/petitioner and RBI Circular, the Bank has every right to adjust the excess payments made in any account even without consent of the account holder, but by only informing him. But in the present case the same was done by the FCI/employer and the Bank after full opportunity to the petitioner employee to justify his excess pension. There is no illegality or infirmity in the deduction made by the Bank. The petitioner is not entitled for any relief. The present petition is devoid of merits. 7. The respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6, Allahabad Bank have filed a Supplementary Counter-affidavit stating that the husband of the petitioner was erroneously drawing pension @ Rs. 12834/- w.e.f. 1.1.2007 (the date of implementation of 6th Pay Commission Report) till May, 2014 though his revised basic pension was only Rs. 8451/- w.e.f. 1.1.2007. After the detection of the irregularity it was found that total amount Rs. 6,15,517.00 in excess has been paid to the employee/husband of the petitioner, vide Comparative Pension Payment Chart in this regard. 12834/- w.e.f. 1.1.2007 (the date of implementation of 6th Pay Commission Report) till May, 2014 though his revised basic pension was only Rs. 8451/- w.e.f. 1.1.2007. After the detection of the irregularity it was found that total amount Rs. 6,15,517.00 in excess has been paid to the employee/husband of the petitioner, vide Comparative Pension Payment Chart in this regard. After giving full opportunity to the pensioner employee to justify his excess pension, the recovery of excess payments @Rs.6000/- per month started since June, 2014, in the life time of the employee Ram Phal, but after his death the deduction was reduced to Rs. 3000/- per month. In view of the interim order of this Hon’ble Court since September, 2016 the Net Paid restored to Rs. 9645/-. Thus, the recovery made upto August, 2016 was Rs. 78,517/- and the remaining recovery is Rs. 5,37,000/- vide pension payment sheet in this regard. The employee/pensioner was fully aware of the revised PPOs and the deduction to be made to adjust the excess payments on which he, also, fetched the interest. In view of the revised PPOs there was no illegality in reduced payment of the pension to the pensioner Ram Phal. After the directions of the employer the Bank deducted the excess payment from the account of the petitioner under the principles of general lien of a banker and right to set off by the bank, RBI Circular and in view of the petitioner’s general undertaking. 8. The petitioner has filed his Rejoinder-affidavit to the Counter-affidavit filed by respondent No. 2 stating that the respondents have revised the pension of the petitioner’s husband since 1.1.1997 and recovery is being made from 1.1.1997 to 2006. It is further submitted that the petitioner was not given any show-cause/opportunity/information before proceeding with the recovery. The petitioner only came to know when the pension of her husband was deposited in his pension account for the month of June and July of 2014 and her husband died on 30.7.2014. The impugned order of fixation and consequential order of recovery are illegal and bad in law and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law in as much as no recovery could be made after the retirement and that too when there was no fault of the petitioner’s husband in wrong fixation of pension. Thus, the present writ petition has full force and deserves to be allowed with cost. Thus, the present writ petition has full force and deserves to be allowed with cost. 9. The petitioner has filed Rejoinder-affidavit to the Second Counter-affidavit filed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 stating that the respondents are trying to cover their fault by shifting the burden upon the petitioner where as the correct fact is that whatever the mistake has been committed, the respondents and they are solely responsible for that. The Food Corporation of India has levelled allegations on the Bank and the bank is levelling allegations on the department and in any case either the mistake has been committed by the department or the bank. Since, the bank is the agent of the department, therefore, it would be deemed that the fault has been committed by the department itself. Whatever mistake has been committed that has been committed by the department itself, therefore, there was no fault or misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner or her late husband. Therefore, no recovery could be done in the matter after lapse of more than 7 years. The husband of the petitioner was class IV employee of the Food Corporation of India Department and he was not well versed with the rules and technicalities of the pension pattern. It could not be expected from the Late, Ramphal that he was well aware with the facts of the wrong fixation of pension. In the similar facts and circumstances, the Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down the guidelines in respect of the recovery matter in case of State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih, (2015) 4 SCC 334 and the case of the petitioner is fully covered by clause 1,2 and 3 of those guidelines. So far as the regulation of the department with regard to the recovery is concerned that regulation could not over-rule the law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court. At the most those regulations would apply in cases of fraud but in the present case no ingredients of fraud on misrepresentation are involved. The wrong fixation was done by the department itself. Therefore, they cannot recover the said amount from the petitioner. 10. The petitioner has also filed Rejoinder-affidavit to the Counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent Nos. At the most those regulations would apply in cases of fraud but in the present case no ingredients of fraud on misrepresentation are involved. The wrong fixation was done by the department itself. Therefore, they cannot recover the said amount from the petitioner. 10. The petitioner has also filed Rejoinder-affidavit to the Counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 4,5 and 6 stating that there was no fault of the petitioner’s husband in wrong fixation of his pension, it is the fault of the department if they are saying at this juncture that the wrong fixation was done by the department itself and that was further modified vide impugned order dated 19.9.2013 without giving any opportunity of hearing or show-cause to the husband of the petitioner at any point of time. It is interesting to note here that the first recovery was made from the pension of the petitioner’s husband in June 2014 and he died on 30.7.2014, therefore, he could not know about the refixation of his pension. The circular of the Reserve Bank of India which has been annexed as the C.A.3 of the Counter-affidavit, specifically provides in clause 11 that before initiating recovery process the pensioner ought to have given opportunity of hearing but in the present case no notice or opportunity of hearing has been provided to the petitioner or her husband and straight away the recovery has been done from the pension account. It is further noteworthy that the when the petitioner asked the bank as to how the amount of pension has been reduced, they simply stated that it is confidential and the petitioner may approach the respondent No. 2 and 3. Thus it is clear that the bank itself did not followed guidelines of the RBI. The impugned orders are highly illegal arbitrary in law in as much as the recovery was being done in a very harsh manner without giving any show or opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or her husband and now the respondent are giving lame excuse that the petitioner’s husband was satisfied with the revised pension. If the pension of the petitioner’s husband was wrongly fixed on the higher amount even then there was no role of the petitioner’s husband in wrong fixation. If the pension of the petitioner’s husband was wrongly fixed on the higher amount even then there was no role of the petitioner’s husband in wrong fixation. It is the fault of the department itself and now in view of the judgment of the Apex Court no recovery of over payment mistakenly been made by the employer could be made as the recovery is impermissible in law from the group C and D employees. The husband of the petitioner was group D employee in the department and he was retired in the year 1995 and was receiving pension till his death on 30.7.2014, thus, the department has slept over for so many years i.e., from 1997 and now started recovery from the pension account just before one month of his death and that too without any show-cause or opportunity of hearing thus the impugned orders are not sustainable in the eyes of law and are also barred by time. 11. The petitioner has filed Supplementary Rejoinder-affidavit to the Supplementary Counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 4,5 and 6 and stated that there was no fault of the husband of the petitioner or the petitioner is wrong fixation of pension. It is the duty of the respondent to fix the pension correctly in accordance with the rules. Now the respondents are shifting the burden on the husband of the petitioner, which is absolutely false and baseless. No opportunity or show-cause notice was given to the husband of the petitioner before starting recovery from the pension and thereafter from the family pension of the petitioner. Therefore the entire recovery proceeding is illegal and bad in law. 12. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the husband of the petitioner retired on 31.7.1995 and the respondents have not brought on record any copy of notice, ever informing the petitioner that his pension was wrongly fixed at any stage. There is not a shred of evidence on record to show that the impugned orders dated 19.9.2013 and 9.10.2013 were communicated to the petitioner. There is no mention of any mode of service nor any document has been brought on record to prove that the impugned orders were served on the petitioner during his life time. There is not a shred of evidence on record to show that the impugned orders dated 19.9.2013 and 9.10.2013 were communicated to the petitioner. There is no mention of any mode of service nor any document has been brought on record to prove that the impugned orders were served on the petitioner during his life time. The averment that the petitioner was informed about the wrong fixation of pension during his life time and he never objected to the same during his life time is absolutely false and has been made only to cover the lapse on the part of the respondents. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have blamed the respondent Nos. 4,5 and 6 for wrongly fixation and payment of the pension to the petitioner, while the respondent Nos. 4,5 and 6 have blamed the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 for the same. The petitioner has stated that her husband died on 30.7.2014 and thereafter, from the Bank Statement, she came to know that the pension credited in the account of her husband has been reduced from Rs. 25,668/- to Rs. 9405/- in June and Rs. 10,167/- in July, 2015. The case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), (2015) 4 SCC 334 , wherein the Apex Court has laid down 5 situations wherein recoveries by the employers from their employees, would be impermissible in law. The petitioner claims that his case is covered under situation Nos. 1, 2 3 and also 5 detailed in the above Judgment. 13. The Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 has argued that the petitioner’s husband was fully aware of the excess payment of pension made to him but he never objected to the same and therefore, it is not open for the petitioner to dispute the same before this Court. He has further argued that the employer always has the right to recover the excess amount of public money paid to an employee. He has further argued that the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (supra) is based on the concession of the Counsel for the State of Punjab before the Apex Court and therefore, it has no general application. He has further argued that the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (supra) is based on the concession of the Counsel for the State of Punjab before the Apex Court and therefore, it has no general application. The Judgment is confined to the facts of the case decided by the aforesaid Judgment and therefore, the petitioner cannot claim any benefit of the aforesaid judgment. He has further argued that the Bank has calculated the pension of the petitioner without any direction from the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and has made excess payment to the petitioner, which the Bank is legally bound to recover and refund it to the employers. 14. The learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 4,5 and 6 has argued that the husband of the petitioner received excess payment of pension, which the Bank is recovering on the directions of the employers. The Bank has full authority to recover the excess payments made to the Account holder in view of the R.B.I. Circular dated 1.7.2015 and undertaking of the husband of the petitioner that in case of any excess payment the Bank has every right to adjust the excess payments made in any account even without consent of the Account holder. The Bank is recovering the amount in installments, keeping in view the hardship of the petitioner. The learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 4,5 and 6 has relied upon the Judgment of the Apex Court, in the case of High Court of Punjab & Haryana and others v. Jagdeo Singh, AIR 2016 SC 3523 , wherein the Apex Court, held that the Judgment of State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (supra) shall not apply to a situation where the officer to whom the payment was made had furnished and undertaking, while opting for the revised pay scale that in case any payment is found to have been made in excess would be refunded by him. 15. After going through the pleadings of the parties and their rival submissions, it is clear that the deceased husband of the petitioner retired on 31.7.1995 from the service of the respondent No. 2 from the Class IV post of “Picker”. He was calculated and paid his pension thereafter. 15. After going through the pleadings of the parties and their rival submissions, it is clear that the deceased husband of the petitioner retired on 31.7.1995 from the service of the respondent No. 2 from the Class IV post of “Picker”. He was calculated and paid his pension thereafter. He never gave any undertaking that he is opting for higher pension and in case he is not found entitled to the same, recovery may be made from his Account. The deceased husband of the petitioner died on 30.7.2014, after few months of serious illness. After his death, the family discovered from the Statement of the Pension Account in the Bank of respondent No. 6 that the pension of the deceased, Ramphal has been reduced w.e.f., June, 2014, the son of the petitioner made repeated applications under the Right to Information Act before the respondents to inform as to how the pension of his father has been reduced. When nothing was done, he approached this Court by way of Writ Petition No. 2632 of 2016, which was disposed off by the order dated 21.1.2016, directing the Regional Manager of the Corporation to consider the grievance of the petitioner and pass reasoned and speaking order. By the order dated 11.5.2016, the impugned orders dated 9.10.2013 and 19.9.2013 were supplied to the petitioner for the first time by the Regional Manager, informing that the pension of deceased Ramphal was reduced/re-fixed on the basis of these orders. The orders do not prove any service on the deceased employee in the year 2013 or thereafter by the respondent Nos. 1,2 and 3. The respondent Nos. 1,2 and 3 blamed the respondent Nos. 4,5 and 6 for wrong fixation and payment of the excess pension to the petitioner and vice versa. Therefore, it is clear that the respondents on their own calculated and revised the pension of the husband of the petitioner and paid the same to him. They allege that they discovered in the month of June, 2014 that the petitioner’s husband was paid the pension on the higher side since the date of his retirement in July, 1995 and he continued to enjoy the pension without any objection. They allege that they discovered in the month of June, 2014 that the petitioner’s husband was paid the pension on the higher side since the date of his retirement in July, 1995 and he continued to enjoy the pension without any objection. The logic is absurd, without proving that the deceased husband of the petitioner was aware of the exact amount of the pension payable to him on the date of his retirement and all through after his retirement, till his death, such an allegation cannot be accepted to be correct and amenable to reason. 16. There is no documentary evidence on record to prove that after his retirement in the July, 1995 till his death in July, 2014, the husband of the petitioner was ever noticed regarding the excess amount of pension being paid to him. Only averment made is that the impugned order dated 19.9.2013 was sent to the Village address of the deceased husband of the petitioner, when there is no evidence regarding the mode of sending of the order to his village address. 17. The argument of the learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 that the petitioner has wrongly been paid the excess amount of pension due to fault of the respondent No. 6, the Allahabad Bank, cannot be accepted to be correct. The Bank never calculates the post retiral dues of the Account holders and makes payment on its own. The Bank is the agent of the employer and it makes payment as per the direction of the employer in the account of the employee. His further argument that the judgement in the case of State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (supra) is based on conversation of the counsel and has no general application is legally misconceived as clear from the Apex Court’s judgement itself. 18. The Counsel for the respondent Nos. 4,5 and 6 have relied upon the Judgment in the case of High Court of Punjab and Haryana and others v. Jagdeo Singh (supra) to contend that where the employee gives an undertaking that in case the payment made to him is found to be made in excess, while opting for revised pay scale, he is bound by undertaking and bound to repay the amount. This case law does not applies to the facts of the case in hand, simply because the petitioner never opted for higher /revised pension nor he gave any undertaking to the employer that in case he is found disentitled to higher /revised pension, he will repay the same. The reliance of the respondent Bank on the Circular dated 1.7.2015 of the Reserve Bank of India will not help the respondent Nos. 4,5 and 6 since the deduction from the pension account of the deceased husband of the petitioner was started w.e.f., June, 2014. The guidelines/circular of R.B.I. which came into force subsequently cannot be relied upon for justifying any action of the Bank retrospectively. Such a plea is absurd and cannot be accepted. Further, the reliance of the respondent Nos. 3 to 6 on the undertaking of the petitioner and her deceased husband that they undertake to indemnify the Bank, in case of any excess payment shall apply only when it is conclusively proved that the payment which was made to the deceased husband of the petitioner was in excess to his entitlement and he was not entitled to get the same. In the present case, as yet this has not been conclusively proved that the fixation of the pension of the petitioner was incorrect and the impugned orders are ex parte unilaterally determining the liability against the petitioner and her deceased husband. 19. It is clear from the record that after the death of the husband of the petitioner on 20th July, 2014, the petitioner discovered from the bank account statement of the pension account of her husband in Allahabad Bank that since June, 2014, the deductions from the pension of her husband has been made. The son of the deceased sent a letter dated 29.8.2014 to the Regional Manager of the Food Corporation of India under the Right to Information Act to inform about the amount of pension, which was being paid to his late father and how much amount has been deducted from his pension of June and July, 2014. A letter dated 16.9.2014 was sent to the son of the petitioner in reply by the District Office of the Food Corporation of India at Allahabad informing that there is no information regarding the pension paid to his father nor there is any information regarding the deductions from his pension in June and July, 2014. A letter dated 16.9.2014 was sent to the son of the petitioner in reply by the District Office of the Food Corporation of India at Allahabad informing that there is no information regarding the pension paid to his father nor there is any information regarding the deductions from his pension in June and July, 2014. He can get all the informations from provident fund establishment. 20. On 29.9.2014, the son of the petitioner again sought similar information from Accounts Controller, Food Ministry, New Delhi and by the letter dated 14.10.2014, the Principal Accounts Officer, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, New Delhi informed the petitioner that regarding the deduction in the pension of his father, he should seek information from the bank concerned. Thereafter, the petitioner made an application before the Branch Manager, Allahabad Bank, Tharvai, Allahabad seeking information under the Right to Information Act on 12.11.2014. On 24.11.2014, he was informed by the General Manager of the Bank that the information sought by the son of the petitioner is of the personal and confidential nature and, therefore, cannot be given to him. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the Writ-A No. 2632 of 2016 before this Court and in pursuance of the order of this Court, the impugned orders were supplied to her alongwith the letter dated 11.5.2016 by the Regional Manager of the Food Corporation of India, Allahabad. 21. Hence it is clear that the respondents have made false averments in their counter-affidavit that they made deductions from the pension of the deceased husband of the petitioner after giving due opportunity of hearing since the respondents, even on the information sought by the son of the petitioner refused to give him, the correct details about the deductions made from the pension of his father’s pension and the respondent bank went to the extent of stating that the information sought by him is confidential in nature and cannot be given to him. Therefore, it is absolutely clear that the respondents started deductions from the pension of the petitioner’s husband without any notice or opportunity of hearing whatsoever. 22. In view of the above discussion, it is clear that the petitioner is required to be extended the benefit of the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (supra). 22. In view of the above discussion, it is clear that the petitioner is required to be extended the benefit of the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (supra). The situation No. 1, 2, 3 and 5 given the aforesaid judgement squarely apply to the case of the petitioner. 23. Therefore, the impugned orders dated 19.9.2013 and 9.10.2013, issued by Senior Account Officer and Pay & Accounts Officer Central Pension Accounting Office, Government of India, New Delhi, are hereby quashed. The entire recovery proceedings initiated by the Allahabad Bank Tharvai Branch, Allahabad against the petitioner are quashed and respondent No. 6 is directed to refund to the amount already recovered from the pension of the deceased husband of the petitioner and from the family pension of the petitioner alongwith 8% simple interest within a period 2 months from today. However, it is open for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 to issue notice to the petitioner supported by documents proving the correct entitlement of family pension amount payable to her prospectively. It shall be open for the petitioner to submit her objection to such a notice. Thereafter, the authority concerned shall pass a reasoned and speaking order fixing the correct family pension of the petitioner in accordance with the Rules and the same shall be paid to the petitioner. Till fresh decision is taken by the respondents, no deduction from family pension of the petitioner shall be made. 24. The writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs.