Puran Singh vs PRABHANDHAK, BHARATIYA STATE BANK

THIS is an appeal filed by the complainant Pooran Singh, who is a pensioner and is resident of Gopalganj Sagar against the order dated 18.3.1999 passed in Case No. 71/95 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sagar (for short the ''District Forum'').

THE facts of the case in brief are that the complainant is a retired railway employee. He was posted as Traffic Inspector in Western Railway at Ujjain from where he retired on 31.5.1985. On his retirement his pension was fixed at Rs. 565/- and a PPO No. RTM/E/789/1/1247/4110 dated 24.5.1985 was issued. It was made clear in the PPO that the pension will be effective from 1.6.1985. This pension was revised and a revised PPO No. RTM/E/789/1/1247/4110 dated 2.9.1986 was issued in which basic pension was raised and fixed as Rs. 893/-, additional pension Rs. 63/- and personal pension Rs. 98/- was sanctioned and it was directed that the dearness allowance shall be payable on the original pension and not on personal pension. Again this pension was recalculated at 50% of average emoluments in place of slab formula as per order of the Govt. of India 2/1/87 PIC-1 dated 16.4.1987 and a revised PPO No. RTM/E/769/1/1247/4110 dated 23.3.1994 was issued and the original pension of Rs. 893/- was revised and was fixed to be Rs. 960/-, additional pension to be added was Rs. 67/- and Rs. 98/- as personal pension. This sanctioned pension was to be paid by the State Bank of India, Ujjain vide letter No. PNB/Mukhyalaya/W.R./Ratlam/7784 dated 12.6.1985, which was then transferred to State Bank of India, Civil Lines Branch, Sagar because after retirement complainant settled at Sagar. The appellant was getting Rs. 1,991/- per month upto April, 1995 but in the month of May, 1995 he was paid only Rs. 1,491/-. On enquiry made by the complainant pensioner, the Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Branch Civil Lines, Sagar vide letter No. 4543 dated 13.5.1995 informed the pensioner that he had been paid an excess amount of Rs. 19,813/- with effect from 1.1.1986 to 30.4.1995. This amount is to be deducted from the pension; therefore, the Bank is deducting Rs. 500/- per month from his pension. Hence, Rs. 1,491/- has been paid in the month of May, 1995. The complainant approached the Bank to examine his case properly because the railway had specifically made clear vide letter dated 5.5.1994 addressed to Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Civil Lines Sagar to make the payment of his revised pension at the rate of Rs. 960/- plus additional pension of Rs. 67/- plus personal pension of Rs. 98/- and dearness allowance as admissible from time to time. But the Bank paid no heed to his request; therefore, he approached the District Forum, Sagar to seek redressal of his grievances. The District Forum after considering the evidence adduced by the parties ordered that the dispute is of complicated nature. Therefore, the complainant should approach the Civil Court or should seek redressal from the Railway Authorities and dismissed the complaint. It is against this order of the District Forum, that the complainant has preferred this appeal.

The appellant''s contention is that Railway Authorities have time and again issued letters and made position clear about the payment of pension. He has drawn our attention to letters dated 5.5.1994 and 31.12.1994 sent by the Divisional Accounts Officer, Western Railway, Ratlam to Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Civil Lines, Sagar enclosing the copies of the PPO''s issued while revising pension of the appellant but the Bank has not considered those letters and has stated recovery which is not justified.

THE Chief Manager of the State Bank of India, Civil Lines, Branch Sagar in his written reply has stated that as per PPO received from the Western Railway, Ratlam his pension comes less that what he has been paid, therefore, excess amount is being deducted from his pension on monthly instalment basis. THE Bank has a right to recover the amount, which has already been paid in excess. If the complainant had any grievance he may approach to the Railway Authorities. We have gone through the record and evidence adduced by the parties. In this case, the only point to be decided is whether the Bank was deficient in service by deducting the amount of pension of the complainant ?

WE have perused the record. The documents on record produced by the appellant and the respondent are very clear to decide the point. A perusal of PPO''s and letters issued by Divisional Accounts Officer, WEstern Railway, Ratlam and Senior Divisional Accounts Officer, WEstern Railway, Ratlam make clear that the appellant is correct in his version that the Bank has wrongly deducted the amount from his pension. Analysis of the PPO''s make clear that first of all a PPO No. RTM/E/289/1/1247/4110 dated 24.5.1985 issued by the Divisional Accounts Officer, WEstern Railway, Ratlam in which the pension was fixed at Rs. 565/- which was to be paid with effect from 1.6.1985 and the State Bank of India, Ujjain Branch was authorised to make the payment. Again this pension was revised by PPO No. RTM/E/289/1/1247/4110 dated 2.9.1986 and the pension was fixed at Rs. 893/- plus Rs. 63/- as special pension and Rs. 98/- as personal pension. This pension was calculated on the basis of slab formula. But after policy decision of the Government of India for recalculation of pension at 50% of average emoluments in place of slab formula, the pension was recalculated and it was revised and fixed at Rs. 960/- in place of Rs. 893/- and additional pension of Rs. 67/- in place of Rs. 63/- and the personal pension was kept the same at Rs. 98/-. This revision of pension was communicated to the Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Civil Lines, Sagar vide letter No. RTM/E/789/1/1247/4110 dated 23.3.1994. The Divisional Accounts Officer, WEstern Railway, Ratlam again intimated to the Bank vide letter No. RTM/E/789/1/1247/4110 dated 5.5.1994 as to what amount of pension is to be paid to the pensioner. A perusal of the letter dated 10.8.1994 written by the State Bank of India, Civil Lines, Sagar (D-2) makes clear that the respondent Bank has admitted that they have been paying pension to the appellant pensioner at the rate of Rs. 565/- which originally fixed by the PPO dated 24.5.1985. In this letter, respondent No. 1 Bank have sought clarification from the respondent No. 2 Divisional Accounts Officer, Western Railway that from which date this pension shall be effective and have requested to advise the total consolidated pension w.e.f. 1.1.1986. In reply to this letter Senior Accounts Officer, Western Railway, Ratlam vide letter dated 31.12.1994 (P11) has clarified the position in which it has been mentioned that PPO dated 2.9.1986 by which the pension has been revised was sent to the State Bank of India, Ujjain. It seems it has not been received by the respondent, therefore, again PPO''s of revised pension dated 2.9.1986 and 23.3.1994 and a copy of letter dated 5.5.1994 sent by Railways were enclosed with the letter. The contention of the appellant is that the Bank ought to have continued to make the payment on the basis of the PPO issued on 23.3.1994 which has been clarified by the Railway Authorities vide letters dated 5.5.1994 and 31.12.1994. Letter dated 10.8.1994 (D-2) written by the State Bank of India, Civil Lines, Sagar to the Divisional Accounts Officer, Western Railway, Ratlam makes clear that upto July, 1994 the appellant has been paid pension at the rate of of Rs. 565/- while this pension was revised by PPO dated 2.9.1986 and was fixed at Rs. 893/- plus Rs. 98/- as personal pension and Rs. 63/- as special pension which was to be paid from 1.6.1985. The Bank also prepared an intimation dated 27th July, 1987 under specific form of intimation by the Pension Disbursing Authority to the PPO Issuing Authority regarding consolidation/part consolidation of pension in terms of Department of Pension and Pensioner''s Welfare O.M. No. 2/1/87-PIC-1 dated 16.4.1997 and a calculation of arrears was annexed which shows that upto June, 1987 the total amount of Rs. 20,304/- was to be paid while the Bank had paid Rs. 18,997/- only to the pensioner. Therefore, an amount of Rs. 1,307/- was the arrear, which was to be paid by the Bank to the appellant. At one side the Bank had calculated and found that upto June, 1987 less amount was paid to the appellant and on the other hand they have stated that have paid excess amount and for which they are entitled to recover from the complainant. The facts that Bank had made excess payment is not proved because they are still seeking guidance as to what amount is to be paid to the pensioner. This shows that the Bank has acted arbitrarily and has started deduction of amount of Rs. 500/- per month from pension of the complainant. In the record there is a letter dated 6.1.1999 written by Senior Divisional Accounts Officer, Western Railway, Ratlam to the Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Civil Lines Branch, Sagar with which previous letters dated 5.5.1994 PPO''s order dated 2.9.1986 and 23.3.1994 have been annexed. This letter makes the position more clear that the appellant was entitled to get pension as per PPO dated 24.5.1985 w.e.f. 1.6.1985 and this pension was revised vide PPO dated 2.9.1986 and 23.3.1994. Further the Railways have clarified that the Bank has correctly calculated the pension to be paid from Rs. 1.1.1996 on the basis of Fifth Pay Commission. The calculation sent by the Bank vide letter dated 18.11.1998 was confirmed to be correct. This means that only calculation of the revised pension as per Fifth Pay Commission recommendation was held to be correct by the Accounts Officer and the previous amounts was to be paid as per revised PPO''s w.e.f. 1.6.1985 and 1.1.1986. Therefore, there is no question of any over payment of pension to the pensioner.

FROM the correspondence, we find that when Bank wrote letter dated 21.4.1994 (D-1) and the letter dated 10.8.1994 (D-2), Railway Authorities promptly replied vide letter dated 5.5.1994 (P-1) and 31.12.1994 (P-2) making clear the position that the pension of the appellant has been revised vide PPO dated 2.9.1986 and 23.3.1994 and that amount was to be paid from 1.6.1986. When revised amount was to be paid from 1.6.1986, the contention of the appellant is right that the Bank is mis-representing the PPO''s and wrongly deducted the amount. The Bank should have prepared details of the pension to be paid to the appellant from 1.6.1985 and 1.1.1986 and reached to the conclusion as to how much amount was paid by them as against the amount to be paid and the calculation should have been got ratified from the Railway Authorities. But the Bank on its own has started deducting the amount arbitrarily. We, therefore, find that the Bank has acted in the deficient manner. The District Forum ought to have examined this fact and should have ordered to the Bank not to act arbitrarily.

TO conclude, we find that the District Forum has not analysed the case and has wrongly given a direction to the appellant to approach the Civil Court as no complicated issues were involved in this case. Therefore, we set-aside the order of the District Forum. We direct the respondent No. 1 State Bank of India to stop deduction of Rs. 500/- per month from his pension and make the payment of full pension due to the appellant immediately. The Bank should prepare a detailed statement of the payment of pension to be paid to the appellant and actually paid to him and get it ratified by the Railway Authorities. Then if any over payment is found, then the Bank shall be free to deduct the amount. In the result, with the aforesaid observations, this appeal is allowed. The order of the District Forum is set-aside. In the circumstances parties to bear their own costs. Appeal allowed.