The High Court disposed of a writ petition filed by a retired BSNL employee seeking a refund of recovered pension amounts. The Court held that the remedy lies before the Central Administrative Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, and dismissed the petition against liberty to approach the Tribunal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1103 of 2021
======================================================
Sri Abdul Karim Son of Gani Mohammad, Resident of House NO. 56 KA, Railway Gumti No. 106, near N.H.-28, Bariya, P.O.-Kolhua Paigambarpur, P.S.-Ahiyapur, District-Muzaffarpur-843108.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
... ... Respondent/s
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mahesh Prasad, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Dr. K. N. Singh, ASG Mr. Shyamal Krishna Sinha, Advocate Mr. Mukind Jee, Advocate Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh, Advocate
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 22-04-2022
Heard learned counsel for the respective parties through
virtual court proceedings.
“(i) For issuance of the appropriate writ/writs in the nature of mandamus directing and
Patna High Court CWJC No.1103 of 2021 dt.22-04-2022
2/3
commanding the respondent concerned for refund of the illegal recovered amount of Rs. 9,88,063/- to the SBI, Muzaffarpur (00138) Accounts No. 10876136780/PPO no. deduction from the pension account of a retired employee is contrary to the Swamy’s C.C.S.(Pension) Rules, R-61 (6) and the settled Principal of Law in the Dharampal Singh Case by the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana high Court and the Rafiq Masih case vide 2015 (4) SCC 334 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
(ii) For issuance of the appropriate writ/writs in the nature of certiorari by setting aside the alleged telecom department letter no. CCABR/3PEN/161756 DT 001216 due to excess DA amount paid and the RBI Master Circular No. RBI/201715/1DGBA, GBD No.1/31.5.001/2017-18 dated 01.07.2017 contained in letter no. CPPC/AGM/GEN/TELE/BK/2020-21/135 dated 22.05.2020 issued by the respondent no. 5. This letter is illegal, arbitrary and malicious as the pensionary benefits are sanctions after a proper calculation and verification vide Annexure 3 to this petition.
(iii) For any other relief or reliefs and interest on the illegally recovered amount with the compensation which the petitioner be found entitled to be granted as he has unnecessarily been dragged into and harassed and in the interest of Natural justice.”
Patna High Court CWJC No.1103 of 2021 dt.22-04-2022 3/3
Administrative Tribunal in the light of Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 read with L. Chandra Kumar
vs. Union of India and Others reported in (1997) 3 SCC 261.
(P. B. Bajanthri, J)
GAURAV S./-
| AFR/NAFR | |
|---|---|
| CAV DATE | |
| Uploading Date | 27.04.2022 |
| Transmission Date |
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
L. Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India and OthersReferred¶28
(1997) 3 SCC 261 · Who else cites this
Sri Abdul Karim Son of Gani Mohammad
The Union of India through the Chairman, Ministry of Communication and Information Technology
The Principal Controller Communication Accounts, Kolkata
The Controller of Communication Accounts Bihar Circle
The General Manager, Deptt. of Tele Communication, Muzaffarpur
The Chief Manager, Centralised Pension Processing Cell, SBI, Patna
P. B. Bajanthri
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
