Smt. Sawinder Kaur vs State of Punjab and Others

Ajay Tewari, J.—By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the reduction of her family pension and consequently the recovery sought to be made from her. The husband of the petitioner who was in police service had died in terrorist attack. After the death of her husband on 3.2.1991, she was originally sanctioned family pension of Rs. 1,560/- but vide order Annexure P-3, her pension was reduced to Rs. 900/-. Hence, the present petition. The precise argument of learned counsel for the petitioner as regard recovery is that the same could not be made in view of the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Chandi Prasad Uniyal and Others Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others, Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 431 : 2012(8) SCC 417 on the point that the excess payment of public money which is often described as "tax payer money" belongs neither to the officers who have effected over payment nor that of the recipients.

As regards the reduction learned counsel has argued that the same could not have been made without issuing notice to the petitioner.

Learned D.A.G. has defended the order passed by the respondents stating that the same was passed in accordance with law.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has also cited Chandi Prasad Uniyal and Others Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others, to canvass that recovery could not be made and has relied upon Paras 14 and 17 of the said judgment which are quoted herein below:--

We may point out that in Syed Abdul Qadir case such a direction was given keeping in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of that case since the beneficiaries hand either retired or were on the verge of retirement and so as to avoid any hardship to them.

We are, therefore, of the considered view that except few instances pointed out in Syed Abdul Qadir case (supra) and in Col. B.J. Akkara (retd.) case (supra), the excess payment made due to wrong/irregular pay fixation can always be recovered.

Learned DAG, Punjab has not been able to show any judgment counter to Chandi Prasad (supra) and has also not been able to deny the fact that no notice was issued to the petitioner before reduction of her pension. He has, however, stated that in case this Court set aside the order of reduction of pension on the ground that no notice was served on the petitioner then liberty should be granted to the respondents to make any recovery after giving notice to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly accepted this offer and stated that since it is a case relating to a widow of a person who was killed in a terrorist attack, strict time limit should be prescribed within which the respondents may give any notice. Resultantly, Annexure P-3 is set aside. However, liberty is granted to the respondents to issue a notice to the petitioner asking her to show-cause against any proposed reduction of pension and to take a decision after receiving her reply. It is also made clear that any notice can be issued within a period of one month from the receipt of certified copy of this judgment. In case no notice is issued within the said period the writ petition would be unconditionally allowed and the petitioner would be entitled to continue receiving her pension without any reduction.

Arrears, if any, should be worked out and disbursed within a period of two months, failing which, the petitioner shall be entitled to claim the same with interest @ 8% per annum.