Allowed

The Chief Manager v. Sudhakaran.S

Kerala HC4 Feb 2020OP (CAT)/3917/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that the bank cannot recover the entire excess pension paid erroneously as the retiree was not responsible. Recovery is limited to the excess amount identified from January 2011. The bank must credit the balance of Rs.3,17,311/- to the pensioner.

What did the court decide?

Bank to credit Rs.3,17,311/- to first respondent's account within 4 weeks; original petition rejected with directions.

The Chief Manager Vs Sudhakaran.S — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶6

TUESDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 15TH MAGHA, 1941

¶7

OP (CAT).No.3917 OF 2013(Z)

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 27-06-2013 IN OA 862/2012 OF CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH

¶9

PETITIONERS :

¶10

1 THE CHIEF MANAGER

¶11

STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, (ASSOCIATE OF THE STATE BANK OF INDIA),CENTRALIZED PENSION PROCESSING CENTRE, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 014.

¶12

2 THE CHIEF MANAGER, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, OORUTTAMBALAM BRANCH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 507.

¶13

BY ADVS.

¶14

SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN (SR.) SRI.K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH SMT.VANDANA MENON

¶15

RESPONDENTS :

¶16

1 SUDHAKARAN.S., SENIOR TECHNICIAN, VSSC, ISRO P.O., TRIVANDRUM (RETD), SUDHANI, CHEENIVILA, KOOVALASSERY POST - 695 022.

¶17

2 THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, DEPARTMENT OF SPACE, VIKRAM SARABAI SPACE CENTRE, NEW DELHI - 110 001.

¶18

OP (CAT).No.3917 OF 2013(Z)

¶19

¶20

3 THE HEAD ACCOUNTS INTERNAL FINANCIAL ADVISOR GENERAL, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, DEPARTMENT OF SPACE, VIKRAM SARABAI SPACE CENTRE, ISRO (PO), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 022.

¶21

4 THE PAY ACCOUNTS OFFICER, CENTRAL PENSION ACCOUNTING OFFICE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, TGRIKOOT-2, BHIKAJICAMA PLACE, NEW DELHI - 110 066

¶22

R1 BY ADVS. SRI.P.ANIYAN SRI.VAKKOM N.VIJAYAN R2-R4 BY ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL

¶23

SRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR

¶24

THIS OP (CAT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04.02.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING :

¶25

OP (CAT).No.3917 OF 2013(Z)

¶26

¶27

JUDGMENT

¶28

K. Vinod Chandran, J.

¶29

The petitioner is a bank which was entrusted with the task of disbursement of pension to the first respondent. The 1^st respondent retired as a Central Government employee and had also obtained computation of pension at the time of retirement. The pension payment order of the petitioner is seen at Annexure A1. The pension payment order specifically indicates the computation having been carried out. However, the bank paid the entire pension without deducting the amounts which are to be deducted on account of computation. The respondent retired on 31.03.2004 and the erroneous payment continued till 2012 when a revision to the pension was effected.

¶30

On revision of pension, Annexure A6 was issued, which indicated the earlier pension as also the revised pension. It was at that point that the bank realised that they had been paying excess amounts as pension. In such circumstances, the impugned order in the Original Application was passed seeking refund of the entire amounts coming to more than

¶31

OP (CAT).No.3917 OF 2013(Z)

¶32

¶33

Rs.5,00,000/-. Recovery too was commenced from the monthly pension drawn by the first respondent. It was against the said order of refund and recovery that the first respondent approached the Tribunal.

¶34

The Tribunal found that the bank having erroneously paid the pension could not recover the entire excess amounts paid. The Tribunal restricted the refund of excess amounts paid from January 2011 onwards, since the revision was effected on that date on which date the bank also realised the erroneous excess payments made.

¶35

We do not think there can be any interference caused to the order of the Tribunal since the first respondent was not at all responsible for the excess payments made. The bank pays the pension into the account of the pensioner only on the orders issued by the Central Government which clearly indicated the computation.

¶36

In the course of hearing of the original petition, we were informed by the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent that the bank had been continuing the recovery despite the Tribunal having restrained them from carrying on any recovery of the excess amounts paid prior to January, 2011. We, hence directed the bank to file a statement

¶37

OP (CAT).No.3917 OF 2013(Z)

¶38

¶39

showing the exact amount paid, in excess and the amount already recovered from the pension. The bank has filed a statement dated 27.01.2020 indicating that the excess payment made was Rs.5,70,420/-. The excess amounts from January 2011 comes to Rs.1,42,026/-. A total recovery of Rs.4,59,337/has been made from the pension of the first respondent. In such circumstance, the bank is entitled to retain only Rs.1,42,026/-. The balance of Rs.3,17,311/- shall be credited to the pension account of the first respondent within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

¶40

The original petition is rejected with the directions hereinabove.

¶41

Sd/- K.VINOD CHANDRAN JUDGE

¶42

Sd/- V.G.ARUN JUDGE

¶43

RKM

¶44

OP (CAT).No.3917 OF 2013(Z)

¶45

¶46

APPENDIX

¶47

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

¶48

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF OA 862/2012 FILED BY THE IST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH.

¶49

ANNEXURE A6	TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 16-08-2012 TOGETHER WITH THE LETTER DATED 19-01-2012 ADDRESSED TO THE BANK WITH A STATEMENT OF CALCULATION (6 PAGES)
ANNEXURE A1	TRUE COPY OF PENSION PAYMENT ORDER DATED 1-4-2004 (6 PAGES)
ANNEXURE A2	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 5-4-2004 ALONG WITH A PENSION CALCULATION SHEET (4 PAGES)
ANNEXURE A3	TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE PASS BOOK (43 PAGES)
ANNEXURE A4	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 27-12-2010 ( 3 PAGES)
ANNEXURE A5	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 11-08-2012 ( 2 PAGES)
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONERS HEREIN (R5 AND R6) IN O.A 862/2012 DT. 11-02-2013 ( 6 PAGES)
ANNEXURE R5	TRUE COPY OF ORIGINAL PENSION PAYMENT ORDER DATED 12-05-2004 ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL PENSION ACCOUNTING OFFICE, GOVT. OF INDIA, NEW DELHI (1 PAGE)
ANNEXURE R5(A)	TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM F.NO. 105/1/2004-1C DATED 1-3-2004 ISSUED BY GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NEW DELHI (1 PAGE)
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATION TRIBUNAL DATED 27-06-2013 IN O.A 862/2012 (10 PAGES)

The Chief Manager v. Sudhakaran.S

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Chief Manager v. Sudhakaran.S

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

Union of India Vs Sandeep Pandey

Union of India Vs Vishnu Thampi

The State of Kerala Vs M. Brahmadathan

Sandhya v., Vs the Travancore Vevaswom Board

Vineetha V.V. Vs the Union of India

Jithin M., Vs State of Kerala