AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The complainant / respondent is a retired Railway employee who had a savings bank account with the petitioner bank. The Railways paid him a sum of Rs.7,08,644/- by way of a cheque towards his retiral benefits. The aforesaid cheque was deposited by the complainant in his savings bank account with the petitioner bank. Later on, a sum of Rs.4,47,219/- was debited from the account of the complainant on the ground that the Railways had made an excess payment of the aforesaid amount. Being aggrieved from the aforesaid debit, the complainant approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint.
The complaint was resisted by the petitioner bank pleading inter-alia that the complainant had given an undertaking to the Railways to refund any excess payment made to him and therefore, the bank was justified in debiting the aforesaid amount to the bank account of the complainant in terms of the instructions received from the Railways.
The District Forum having allowed the complaint, the petitioner bank approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. The said appeal having been dismissed, the bank is before this Commission by way of this revision petition.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the declaration made by the complainant while seeking drawl of the pension from the Indian Railways. In the aforesaid declaration, he gave an unconditional consent to the recovery of the Railway dues, if any. He also drew my attention to the declaration whereby the complainant authorized the Western Central Railways to recover from his DCRG such amount as would become recoverable from him on account of any overpayment made to him or towards any debit that would be raised against him.
A perusal of the letter dated 14.3.2006, sent by Senior Divisional Finance Manager, Western Central Railways to the petitioner bank would show that the bank was requested not to pay the amount of Rs.4,47,219/- to the complainant since the aforesaid amount pertained to commutation which had been wrongly paid to the complainant, as a major DAR case was pending against him. He has also drawn my attention to another letter dated 17.3.2006 received by the petitioner bank from Senior Divisional Finance Manager, Western Central Railways requesting it to prepare a Demand Draft of Rs.4,47,219/- in his favour as the aforesaid amount was not payable.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance upon Clause 5 of the General Conditions which provides that no Railway servant against whom any departmental or judicial proceedings referred to in Rule 9 of the Railway Pension Rules have been instituted before the date of the retirement or the person against whom such proceedings are instituted after the date of retirement shall be eligible to commute a fraction of his provisional pension during the pendency of such proceedings.
It is thus evident that since disciplinary proceedings against the complainant were pending he was not entitled to commutation of pension during the pendency of said proceedings. The commutation of pension was therefore wrongly allowed to him. In view of the undertaking given by him while obtaining the commutation of pension, Indian Railways was entitled to request the bank to debit the amount of Rs.4,47,219/- which had been paid to the complainant towards commutation of his pension.
Vide Circular dated March 17, 2016, Reserve Bank of India issued certain directions to all the banks, including the petitioner bank with respect to recovery of excess / wrong pension payments made to the pensioners. The aforesaid circular to the extent it is relevant reads as under:
"We have been receiving complaints from pensioners stating that the recovery of excess/wrong pension payments are being made in a manner that is not in keeping with the extant guidelines. In this connection, the instructions contained in Circular Nos. CO.DGBA(NBS) No.44/GA.64(11-CVL) 90/91 dated April 18, 1991 and CO.DGBA (NBS) No.50/GGA.64(11-CVL) 90/91 dated May 6, 1991 laying down a uniform procedure in consultation with the Controller General of Accounts and various non-civil Ministries for recovery are reiterated below:
As soon as the excess/wrong payment made to a pensioner comes to the notice of the paying branch, the branch should adjust the same against the amount standing to the credit of the pensioner''s account to the extent possible including lumpsum arrears payment.
d)............
e) The above uniform procedure may be strictly adhered to while effecting recovery of excess/wrong pension payments made to pensioners.
In view of the above referred binding Circular of the Reserve Bank of India, the petitioner bank cannot be said to be deficient in rendering services to the complainant by debiting the aforesaid amount of Rs.4,47,219/- to the account of the complainant. Even otherwise, I see no reason why the complainant should not refund the wrong payment received from him from his erstwhile employer. Since disciplinary proceedings were pending against him, he was not entitled to commutation of the pension during pendency of the said proceedings. The commutation having wrongly been allowed, he ought to have refunded the wrong payment received by him from his erstwhile employer. The equity therefore, lies in favour of the petitioner bank and not in favour of the complainant.
The learned counsel for the complainant / respondent has referred to the decisions of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Sahib Ram Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. 1995 Supp (1) SCC 18 and Shyam Babu Verma & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (1994) 2 SCC 521 . I have perused these decisions. Neither of these decisions has any bearing on the question as to whether or not the petitioner bank was entitled to debit the amount which had been wrongly paid to the complainant towards commutation of his pension.
For the reasons stated hereinabove, the impugned order cannot be sustained and the same is accordingly set aside. The complaint is consequently dismissed, with no order as to costs. The fee of the Amicus Curiae be paid as per rules.