Delhi High Court
Lalit Kumar (Retd.)(Ic-23972 Lt. ... vs Union Of India & Ors. on 16 August, 1999
Equivalent citations: 1999 VAD Delhi 640, 81 (1999) DLT 496
Author: A Sikri
Bench: A Sikri
ORDER
A.K. Sikri, J.
1. Petitioner, who appears in person, has filed this writ petition challenging recoveries sought to be made from his pension. It is the case of the petitioner that after serving for nearly 32 years in the regular army he was retired from service on 1.4.1995 and a monthly pension of Rs. 1459/- was granted to him. This pension was required to be paid to him through savings bank account No. SB-16152 opened with State Bank of India/respondent No. 4. It is further stated by the petitioner that he had cleared all dues and claims against him and produced clearance certificate and only thereafter the pension was granted to him. However, on 9.9.1996 petitioner received a copy of amended PPO informing him that an amount of Rs. 10144/- was to be recovered from his pension @ 1/3rd of pension until the said amount was fully liquidated. When the petitioner contracted his banker on the next day i.e. on 10.9.1996 he came to know that on the basis of amended
PPO received by the bank in third week of August, 1996 the bank had recovered from his account an amount of Rs. 3326/- on 31.8.1996 as one third instalment of recovery. The petitioner filed this petition challenging the aforesaid recovery of Rs. 10114/-. During the pendency of the petition, petitioner received another order dated 24.9.1996 as per which additional demand of Rs. 1323 is made which is also sought to be recovered from his pension.
2. Notice was issued in this petition and in the application for stay (CM. 6402/96) it was directed that there will be no recovery in pursuance of amended PPO from the pension amount of the petitioner.
3. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 3 it is stated that the Office of Controller of defense Accounts (O), Pune (hereinafter referred to as "CDA", for short) which is responsible for maintaining pay and allowances had sent letter dated 29.4.1996 intimating a demand of Rs. 10144/- for recovery. It is further mentioned that details of the demand had been intimated to the petitioner and in case of any dispute or disagreement the petitioner ought to have taken the matter with CDA, Pune instead of filing the present application.
4. A perusal of the amended PPO shows that no details of Rs. 10144/- are given. However, the respondents have filed additional affidavit dated 1.4.1998 in which details of demand are given and the same are as under :-
(i) Barrack damages Rs. 3495/-
(ii) Rent Rs. 2082/-
(iii) Furniture Rs. 1044/-
(iv) Electricity Rs. 1359/-
(v) Water Rs. 810/-
(vi) Travelling allowance Rs. 192/-
(vii) Balance amount of
interest on motor
car allowances. Rs. 4132/-
-----------
Rs. 13144/-
Credit balances (-) Rs. 3000/-
-----------
TOTAL Rs. 10144/-
5. The details of second demand dated 24.9.1996 for an amount of Rs. 1323/- are still not given.
6. The petitioner contended that after he had been issued "clearance certificate" which meant that there were no dues against him. There recovery could not be made now. He also relied upon a judgment of this court in C.K. Razdan Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi cited in 1997(2) AISL Journal 192 and contended that no recovery can be made from pension in view of the provisions of Section 11 of the Pension Act, 1871 and Section 60(i)(g) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. He also contended that before making an order of such recovery no show cause notice was given therefore there was violation of principle of natural justice as he was not given any chance to reply against the proposed recovery. Even the details of the recovery were not given to him.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent has argued that petitioner was informed about the recovery in April, 1996 and if he had any grievance he could have approached the appropriate authorities instead he had filed the present petition and in the petition also he has not disputed the liability but only challenged it on the ground that no deduction can be made from his pension. It is further contended that there is no requirement of issuing show cause notice. The judgment in the case of C.K. Razdan (supra) is sought to be distinguished on the ground that the said case relates to
civilians and Section 11 of the Pension Act, 1871 deals with exemption of pension from attachments. Respondents further contended that in the case of army officials there are specific rules regarding pension and Rule 93 in Chapter VI under the head "Recoveries of over payment" specifically authorises the respondent to recover such amount from the pension of ex-employees.
Rule 93.
(a) Subject to the provisions of clause (b) below, a public claim against a pensioner, a regimental debt due from him or a regimental claim which the President may direct him to pay, shall be recoverable from his pension, gratuity or commuted value of pension.
(b) A public claim or regimental debt, shall not be recovered from the disability pension of an officer or soldier, except under the special order of the President.
(c) A public claim against a soldier or a regimental debt due from him or a regimental claim which the President may direct to be recovered will be recovered from the gratuity admissible to his widow under Regulation 247, Pension Regulations (Army) 1961, Part I.
8. In view of the aforesaid position of rules governing the payment of pension in case of army personnel the case of the petitioner would be regulated by the aforesaid provision which authorises the respondents to effect recovery of public claims, regimental debts and regimental claims from pension. The judgment cited by the petitioner will have no application in the instant case as the said case relates to civilians.
9. However, the present petition warrants to be allowed on the ground that before effecting the recoveries no opportunity was given to the petitioner and the amended PPO (Annexure P-2) only mentions the total amount of Rs. 10144/- to be recovered. Likewise amended PPO dated 29.4.1996 simply mention the amount of Rs. 1323/- without any details. Even in the additional affidavit dated 1.4.1998, although various heads are given under which amounts are due, as noticed above, but no details of these amounts are given. For instance, in respect of recovery on account of barrack damage amounting to Rs. 3495/- it is not stated as to what kind of damages, to which barrack, during which period petitioner had caused and how the amount of Rs. 3495/- was assessed. Likewise recovery towards rent for Rs. 2082/- does not mention the period of rent and at what rate. Similar is the position in respect of other recoveries. No doubt the petitioner has not specifically disputed these in his petition but at the time the petiton was filed no such details were available with the petitioner. Moreover, petitioner appears in person and when he had contended that no recovery could be made after obtaining clearance certificate, it clearly implies that he is disputing these recoveries. He argued so at the time of hearing as well.
10. In these circumstances, both the aforesaid corrigendum/amended PPO's seeking recovery of Rs. 10144/- and Rs. 1323/- are hereby quashed. However, respondent may take appropriate action after following due procedure and giving proper details i.e. opportunities to the petitioner.
11. The writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
