Dismissed

Kapildeo Sharma v. The Union Of India and Ors.

Patna HC30 Jan 2014CWJC/6406/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Retired army personnel Kapildeo Sharma filed a writ petition seeking revision of pension arrears and stopping bank recovery. The court noted the petitioner had over-drawn pension, leading to lawful recovery. The petition was dismissed as lacking merit and aimed at retaining illegal gains. The bank acted correctly in effecting recovery.

What did the court decide?

Writ application dismissed as devoid of merit; recovery proceedings are subsisting.

Kapildeo Sharma Vs The Union Of India and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Patna HC (2014)

¶1

Patna High Court CWJC No.6406 of 2013 (7) dt. 30-01-2014

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6406 of 2013

¶3

======================================================

¶4

Kapildeo Sharma S/O Late Punnu Sharma R/O Village- Shahpur, P.O.Haridaspur, P.S.- Nath Nagar, District- Bhagalpur

¶5

.... .... Petitioner/s Versus

¶6

The Union Of India Through The Principal Secretary Department Of Defence, Govt. Of India, New Delhi

¶7

The Lt. Colonel, Senior Record Office Bombay Engineer Group And Centre, Kirkee, Pune

¶8

The Additional Dte General Personnel Services Sena Bhawan, New Delhi - Pin - 110105 4. The Principal Cda (Pensions) Draupadi Ghat, Allahabad

¶9

The Chief Manager State Bank Of India, Judges Court Road, Patna 6. The Branch Manager, S.B.I. Nath Nagar Branch Nath Nagar, DistrictBhagalpur

¶10

.... .... Respondent/s

¶11

====================================================== Appearance :

¶12

For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Pravina Kumari For the Respondent/s : Mr. N. A. Shamsi, ASG

¶13

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI ORAL ORDER

¶14

¶15

07. 30/01/2014 Petitioner is retired ex-army personnel. He was holding the post of Naik and has approached the High Court for revision of pension with arrears with further direction to the branch of the bank to take up follow up action in releasing such pension and arrears. There is also a prayer not to affect recovery from December, 2002 to November, 2012, as the same is not based on rightful appreciation as to the entitlement of the petitioner.

¶16

Petitioner entered into service of the defense services on 15.02.1957. After four years of service, he was promoted to the post of Naik, from where he ultimately retired on 19.01.1973. Post retirement, he worked in some civil establishments, which is of no

¶17

Patna High Court CWJC No.6406 of 2013 (7) dt. 30-01-2014

¶18

relevance.

¶19

It is the case of the petitioner that till 1985, petitioner was being paid pension on the post of a Naik and thereafter, suddenly, his pension was reduced to the level of a Constable without there being any clear decision or direction. Petitioner protested and sent a representation that his pension required revision from 1996. He had submitted all the concerned documents to the bank in question, but nothing came to be done. To make it worse, the bank started recovering money from his pension account from December, 2002 to November, 2012. In between, the petitioner also became entitled to revision of his pension w.e.f. 01.01.2006 as per the 6^th Pay Revision Committee.

¶20

There is some kind of communication from the Controller of Defense Accounts (Pension), Allahabad, dated 05.11.2012, contained in Annexure-4, where the entitlement of the petitioner after revision and what is payable to him, has been indicated. But its implementation remained an issue.

¶21

Direction was issued, both upon the respondents-Union of India as well as the State Bank of India Branch. The bank has filed a counter affidavit, denying any wrong-doing on their part. Petitioner is being

¶22

Patna High Court CWJC No.6406 of 2013 (7) dt. 30-01-2014

¶23

paid his current pension w.e.f. November, 2013 in terms of the determination made by his ex-employer. Petitioner had drawn excess pension w.e.f. 1^st of January, 1986 to 31^st of December, 1995. This emerged while calculating the arrears, as on 10^th of August, 2002, a sum of Rs. 1,18,799/- (one lac, eighteen thousand, seven hundred and ninety nine) only had been paid to him in excess between 1^st of January, 1986 to 31^st of December, 1995. A detailed calculation thereof has been annexed as Annexure-A to the said counter affidavit. The recovery, therefore, had to be effected. Petitioner was aware of the excess drawl of pension, because he made a communication with the Drawing Authorities that the deduction should not be beyond 50 percent of the overdrawn amount. This position is certified from his own communication, contained in Annexure-B. The recovery was effected between 1^st of January, 2003 to 31^st of December, 2007 and the left over amount was recovered till 2012. The details of recovery and the manner thereof have been indicated in paragraph – 9.

¶24

Petitioner’s pension was revised to Rs. 3,500/per month w.e.f. 1^st of January, 2006 under Sixth Pay Revision Commission and Rs. 4,736/- in terms of the letter and communication, dated 25^th of May, 2012 and 5^th

¶25

Patna High Court CWJC No.6406 of 2013 (7) dt. 30-01-2014

¶26

of November, 2012, which are Annexure-D and E respectively.

¶27

The bank has been paying to the petitioner Rs. 3500 /- w.e.f. 1^st of January, 2006 to 31^st of October, 2013 and thereafter the pension stand revised to Rs. 4736/from July, 2009 to September, 2012 and Rs. 5259 /- from October, 2012 onwards. The bank also gives the details of the arrears of pension, which was calculated and paid. The details of calculation are available at Annexure-F.

¶28

The hue and cry raised by the petitioner is sham and an effort to forestall and prevent the recovery, which has been effected against the petitioner for valid reasons, so the writ application lacks bona-fide as well as fit to be dismissed.

¶29

In the counter affidavit of Union of India, the details of entitlement of the petitioner have been indicated. Besides objections, having been raised regarding maintainability of the writ application, they have also filed their reply on the merits of the case. There is no infirmity in the authorized entitlement and payment which has made to the petitioner. The problem has been created by the petitioner himself, because there was over-drawl by him and this position stands accepted by the petitioner in his letter, dated 03.02.2003, as Annexure-B. The bank

¶30

Patna High Court CWJC No.6406 of 2013 (7) dt. 30-01-2014

¶31

has done no wrong. Details of calculation have been indicated in the counter affidavit.

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioner thereafter tries to point out the infirmity from the official authorization, contained in Annexure-3 and Annexure-4.

¶33

Those communications, in fact, does not help the petitioner in any manner. The miscommunication stands clarified in Annexure-4 and the details of the calculation furnished by the bank as well as the respondents-Union of India does demolish the case of the petitioner of any adjustment or further revision or any order for refund of the recovery, which has already been effected.

¶34

The Court, therefore, comes to a considered opinion that the writ application is not only devoid of merit, but an application, which has been filed with the object of hanging on to an illegal gain, which the petitioner had made earlier due to his over-drawl made, which necessitated the recovery.

¶35

Writ application has no merit, it is dismissed.

¶36

(Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)

¶37

SKM/-

Kapildeo Sharma v. The Union Of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kapildeo Sharma v. The Union Of India and Ors.

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

Jitendra Kumar Ray Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Dhananjay Kumar Pandey Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Abhay Kumar Prabhakar Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Sushree Bharti Biswas Vs the T.M.Bhagalpur University and

Ram Dutt Paswan and Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Sanjay Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.