Allowed

Vaijanti Mala v. Union of India & Prs

Delhi HC1 Feb 2018LPA/711/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal against a Single Judge's dismissal of a writ petition concerning the cessation of family pension, this Court held that the dispute involved issues of procedural fairness and pay revision accuracy that the lower court failed to adjudicate. The Single Judge order was set aside, remitting the matter for fresh consideration.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order of the Single Judge was set aside. The matter was remitted for fresh consideration to the Single Judge.

Vaijanti Mala Vs Union of India & Prs — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

$~13

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- LPA 711/2016 VAIJANTI MALA ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Rakesh Dhingra, Advocate. versus

¶4

UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjib K. Mohanty, Sr. Panel Central Govt. Counsel for R-1 & 4. Mr. R.S. Mathur, Adv. for R-2 & 3.

¶5

CORAM:

¶6

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA

¶7

O R D E R

¶8

% 01.02.2018

¶9

CM APPL. 46897/2016 (for condonation of delay)

¶10

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the delay in filing the present appeal is hereby condoned.

¶11

Application stands disposed of.

¶12

LPA 711/2016 and CM APPL. 46898/2016 (for stay)

¶13

The appellant’s grievance is that the amount of the family pension, which was being paid to her upon the demise of her husband Mr. Dharam Singh, had ceased. She therefore sought directions from the respondents i.e. Union of India (her husband’s employer) and the Central Bank i.e. the pension disbursing authority. The learned Single Judge upon his appreciation of the material was of the opinion that the dispute was with respect to the accuracy of payments and could not be adjudicated in writ proceedings.

¶14

The counter-affidavit of the Union of India especially discloses that the family pension fixed in terms of the Sixth Pay Commission’s recommendations w.e.f. 01.01.2006 was revised downwards to

¶15

Rs.5221/- p.m. w.e.f. 09.10.2007 through orders dated 23.08.2012 and then to Rs.5625/- w.e.f. 09.10.2007 through orders dated 07.10.2015. It is therefore clear that the bank’s contention that it merely followed the Central Government’s dictate and did not make the payout on account of alleged excess payment, could not have ended the matter. As to whether the downward revision was preceded by appropriate notice and following the procedure prescribed by the rules and in accordance with the fair procedure was not gone into by the learned Single Judge. The Union of India is also silent as to whether any such formality was followed.

¶16

In these circumstances, the impugned order is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted for fresh consideration to the learned Single Judge, who shall re-examine the plea of the parties in the light of the settled position of law that any adverse revision of pay, salary or pension can be valid, if preceded by due opportunity and for reasonable cause.

¶17

The appeal is allowed in the above terms. Pending application stands disposed of accordingly.

¶18

Parties shall be present before the concerned Single Judge according to the Roster allocation on 13^th February, 2018.

¶19

S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J

¶20

A. K. CHAWLA, J

¶21

FEBRUARY 01, 2018 nn

Vaijanti Mala v. Union of India & Prs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vaijanti Mala v. Union of India & Prs

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

Similar cases

Pr Commissioner of Income TAX-6 Vs Moderate Leasing and Capital Services Pvt. Ltd.

Principal Commissioner of Income TAX-7 Vs M/S Rmsi Private Limited

Principal Commissioner of Income TAX-7 Vs M/S Rmsi Private Limited

Taurant Projects Ltd. Vs M/S Engineers India Ltd. and Anr.

M/ S R & R Arts, Vs Acit, Central Circle -7

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (CENTRAL)-1 Vs Sameer Gupta