Prabhu Nath vs Union Of India & Ors

Om Prakash-VII, Member (J)

The present O.A. has been filed by the applicants under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 for the following reliefs:-

i) To issue an order or direction setting aside the reduction of pension amount which was drawn in pursuance of 6th Central Pay Commission report and subsequently reduced the PPO dated 10.9.2018 issued by Accounts Officer, Workshop, North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur.

ii) To issue an order or direction commanding the respondents not to recover any amount in pursuance of pension payment order (PPO) dated 10.9.2018 from the Dearness allowance of the applicant.

iii) To issue any order or direction commanding the respondents to issue fresh pension payment order (PPO) showing correct pension amount in pursuance of 7th C.P.C. report in favour of the applicant.

iv) To grant all the consequential relief which the applicant is entitled for.

v) To grant any other relief which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.

vi) To award the cost.

The brief facts of the case are that applicant retired on 31.3.1998 from the post of Junior Engineer and at the time of retirement, he was drawing Rs. 7000/- per month in the pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000/-. PPO was issued on 3.4.1998 in which Rs. 3798/- was mentioned as amount of monthly pension. It is stated that in the month of April 2018, Rs. 32507/- was transferred by the Bank in the account of the applicant as pension. In pursuance of 7th Central Pay Commission Report, revised PPO has been issued by the Accounts Officer, NER, Gorakhpur on 10.9.2018 in which lesser amount Rs. 27440/- has been fixed by them.

Learned counsel for the respondents filed counter reply, stating therein that the applicant was retired on31.3.1998 from the post of Charge man and according to 5th Pay Commission, his basic salary was Rs. 7700/-and accordingly, his pension was fixed as Rs. 3798/-. In the 6th Pay Commission, applicant’s pension was revised as Rs. 8585/- and thereafter, in the 7th Pay Commission, pension of the applicant was revised/ enhanced for Rs. 24,500/- and according to the table No. 20 of 7th Pay Commission, 12% D.A. was added and applicant’s pension was fixed as Rs. 27,440/- . The said amended pension has been prepared and fixed as per the rules. It is relevant to mention here that how Rs. 33746/- has been paid to the applicant because no such order for the aforesaid amount has been issued from the respondent’s office and the same could not be clarified with the concerned bank.

Counter reply on behalf of respondent No. 4 has also been filed, in which he has stated that grievance of the applicant is that his pension has been reduced from Rs. 33744/- to Rs. 27440/- . It is further submitted that applicant’s pension was revised after 7th Pay Commission for Rs. 27,440/- as per PPO. As per Central Govt. guidelines for enhancement of pension, the answering respondent No. 4 paid pension amount Rs. 30959/- as basic pension and D.A. as admissible. Pension Sanctioning Authority issued PPO on 10.9.2018 in which his monthly pension has been mentioned as Rs. 27440/-and as per PPO dated 10.9.2018, bank has paid pension as Rs. 27440/-

I have considered the rival pleadings of the parties and have gone through the entire record.

It is admitted fact of the respondents that Pension of Rs. 33746/- has been paid to the applicant by the bank, which can also be verified from the Annexure A-4 annexed with the O.A.. Respondents are not aware how this amount has been paid to the applicant. Bank is also not in a position to clarify the same. It is settled that the pension cannot be reduced without issuing any show cause notice to the applicant.

In the case of S.L. Hapoor Vs. Jagmohan (1980) 4 SC 379 and in the case of A.K. Kripak and others Vs. UOI and others (1969) 2 SCC page 262, Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that before passing any adverse order, affected person must be heard.

In the instant case, pension amount of the applicant has been reduced without any show cause notice or without affording any opportunity of hearing to the applicant. Hence, O.A. is liable to be allowed

Accordingly, O.A. is allowed. Order regarding reduction of pension which was drawn in pursuance of 6th CPC report and subsequently reduced by PPO dated 10.9.2018 is quashed. Respondents are directed not to recovery any amount in pursuance of PPO dated 10.9.2018. However, respondents are at liberty to issue fresh PPO after affording opportunity of hearing to the applicant.

There shall be no order as to costs.

All the MAs pending in this O.A. also stand disposed off.