Allowed

Union of India and Another v. Smt Sarita Singh

Allahabad HC15 Jul 2024WRIA/10019/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging the Central Administrative Tribunal's order directing the petitioner to pay simple interest on family pension arrears and recovered amounts. The Court held that since the recovery was justified and consented to by the respondent, awarding interest was unjustified as it amounted to a penalty in the peculiar circumstances of the case.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 07.03.2024 passed by the Tribunal is set aside only to the extent wherein the order has been made for payment of simple interest @ 6% p.a.

Union of India and Another vs Smt Sarita… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:125423-DB

¶2

Chief Justice's Court

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10019 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Union Of India And Another Respondent :- Smt Sarita Singh Counsel for Petitioner :- Gopal Verma Counsel for Respondent :- Ashok Kumar Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Arun Bhansali,Chief Justice Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.

¶6

This writ petition is directed against order dated 07.03.2024 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad whereby while accepting the Original Application filed by the respondent, the petitioners have been directed to release the family pension forthwith and have further been directed to release arrears of family pension from the date of stopping it till the date of release of family pension along with arrears with simple interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of its due till date of actual payment.

¶7

The respondent was granted family pension on account of death of her husband Anjani Kumar Singh. Family pension was being paid whereon a complaint was made that she has remarried with one Vivek Kumar Yadav.

¶8

The petitioners issued notice to the respondent indicating the facts of the complaint. The same was not responded to and whereafter, when the petitioners, based on the marriage certificate, sought to recover the amount of pension paid from the date of marriage, the respondent indicated that the same may be recovered from her savings bank account.

¶9

It appears that the respondent, questioned the validity of the issuance of the marriage certificate by making allegations against

¶10

Vivek Kumar Yadav. The said prayer made was accepted by the Marriage Registering Authority and the certificate was cancelled on 28th September, 2021. The respondent then sent a communication dated 18.01.2022 to the petitioners inter alia indicating the cancellation of the certificate and seeking restart of the family pension along with arrears for the period. When the amount in question was not paid the Original Application was filed.

¶11

5.The Original Application was contested by placing on record the material to indicate the reasons for stopping/recovery of the family pension paid to the respondent.

¶12

The Tribunal, after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that once the marriage certificate has been cancelled, and that the respondent was harassed and victimized by said Vivek Kumar Yadav, she was entitled for payment of the arrears as well as the amount recovered and further ordered that the same be paid with interest @ 6% p.a.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioners has confined the challenge in the present petition in so far as the direction qua payment of interest has been made.

¶14

Submissions have been made that the petitioners were left with no option but to stop/recover the pension based on the marriage certificate once it was verified by the Marriage Registering Authority that the marriage certificate was genuine and as soon as the marriage certificate was cancelled and the direction so given by the Tribunal, the amount of arrears as well as recovered has already been paid to the respondent.

¶15

Further submissions have been made that the direction to pay the arrears as well as the recovered amount with interest is not

¶16

justified in the peculiar circumstances of the case wherein neither the action of the petitioners was incorrect nor there was any mala fide involved and therefore, the order impugned to the said extent deserves to be set aside.

¶17

Learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposed the submissions. It was submitted that the respondent was victimized and harassed by said Vivek Kumar Yadav and on account of the same the pension was stopped, resulting in suffering further even the amount, which was paid, was also recovered by the petitioners and therefore, the Tribunal was justified in ordering for payment of interest. It was prayed that the petition be dismissed.

¶18

We have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

¶19

Undisputed facts, as noticed here-in-before, are that the family pension was being paid to the respondent. However, once a certificate regarding her remarriage was produced by her brotherin-law, she was issued notice by the competent authority, pertaining to the said marriage certificate. However, the respondent did not give any reply. The petitioners whereafter stopped the pension and ordered for recovery of the amount which was paid from the date of re-marriage. The respondent gave consent for the said recovery. However, it appears that the respondent had taken steps for cancellation of the marriage certificate as well as against said Vivek Kumar Yadav making serious allegations, criminal in nature. The said marriage certificate came to be cancelled by the competent authority after which, she again approached the petitioners and filed the Original Application.

¶20

The Original Application was contested only to the extent of

¶21

justifying the action based on the material available with the petitioners.

¶22

The Tribunal, though came to the conclusion that the respondent was victimized by said Vivek Kumar Yadav and ordered for payment of the arrears/recovered amount, however, also directed for payment of simple interest @ 6% p.a.

¶23

So far as the award of interest is concerned, as noticed here-inbefore, the petitioners, based on the certificate regarding which due notice was given to the respondent and no response was received, were bound to take action as on account of alleged remarriage, she was not entitled to family pension. Further, when the amount paid was sought to be recovered, the respondent on her own gave in writing that the amount may be recovered.

¶24

Once the action of the petitioners based on the circumstances is found to be justified and the recovery has been made with the consent of the respondent and whereafter on cancellation of the certificate the amount has already been paid, award of interest for the arrears as well as the amount recovered does not appear to be justified as the same essentially is in the nature of a penalty for which, no case is made out in the present peculiar circumstances of the case.

¶25

Consequently, the writ petition is allowed . The order dated 07.03.2024 passed by the Tribunal is set aside only to the extent wherein the order has been made for payment of simple interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of its due till the date of actual payment.

¶26

No order as to costs.

¶27

Order Date :- 5.8.2024 nd/piyush

¶28

(Vikas Budhwar, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ)

¶29

Digitally signed by :- PIYUSH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Union of India and Another v. Smt Sarita Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India and Another v. Smt Sarita Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ravindra Nath Yadav vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Ramesh Chandra Yadav vs Union of India and 2 Others

Jugnu Chaubey vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Swati Negi vs Vikas Verma and 2 Others

Raj Kumar vs State of Up and 3 Others

Sushil Raghav and Another vs State of U.P. and 9 Others