Delhi High Court
Nilika Lall vs Union Of India & Ors. on 21 July, 2015
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Decided on : 21.07.2015
+ W.P.(C) 1098/2015
NILIKA LALL ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms.Ferida Satarawala, Advocate
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondent
Through: Mr.Amit Mahajan, CGSC for UOI
Mr.Rakesh Mittal, Adv. for DDA
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA
MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT)
1. The plaintiff claims to be aggrieved by the delayed payment and
disbursement of pension dues. Her husband Major S.K.Tandon of the
Armoured Corps., Central India Horse (CIH) was wounded during the Indo-
Pakistan conflict in 1965 and consequently succumbed to his injuries. The
late Major Tandon was declared as a 'Battle Casualty' on 11.09.1965. This
entitled the petitioner, then a young widow to Liberalised Family Pension.
One of the conditions of such 'Liberalised Family Pension' was that the
recipient should continue to remain unmarried or at best marry her brother-
in-law only ("real brother-in-law/real brother of deceased") in which
eventuality the pension was permitted to continue. The petitioner remarried
on 21.10.1968. This led to reduction in her pension; she was given Ordinary
Family Pension. The Pension Rules, 2005 applicable to the army personnel
were amended and the Liberalised Family Pension Rules came into force on
24.06.2005. Yet, the petitioner's entitlement as the recipient of Ordinary
Family Pension continued. When she became aware about the discrepancy
W.P.(C) 1098/2015 Page 1
and the short fall in her pension, she represented to the respondents in
October, 2013. The latter replied on 19.02.2014. Eventually, on 08.07.2014
the Liberalised Family Pension was restored to her with effect from
24.06.2005. The petitioner has also received the arrears constituting the
difference between the amount received by her till date and what was due
with effect from 24.06.2005. It is submitted that in these circumstances the
respondents owe her a duty to pay interest @ 12% per annum. The
respondents stated, at the outset, that this court lacks jurisdiction given the
mandate of Section 2 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act. It is submitted
without prejudice, however, that since now the petitioner has been disbursed
all arrears, no cause survives and that in any event there is no provision for
payment of interest on amount withheld or belated payment of pension.
2. The question of jurisdiction at least in this case in our opinion ought
not to be legitimately urged by the respondents. Concededly, it was their
duty to ensure due compliance of the rules instead of waiting for the
petitioner who does not live in Delhi to approach them and then disburse the
payment and arrears. It has been held repeatedly by the Courts that pension
is not bounty but is in fact deferred salary in D.S.Nakara & Others v. Union
of India 1983 SCR (2) 165 and R.Kapur vs. Director of Inspection 1994 (6)
SSC 589.
3. It has been also repeatedly held that pensioners who are entitled to
arrears of pension or whose amounts are wrongly withheld, are entitled to
interest. See Nalini Kant Sinha vs. State of Bihar & Others 1993 Supp (4)
SCC 748, Dr.L.P.Agarwal vs. Union of India and Others 1992 AIR 1872,
R.R.Bhanot vs. Union of India 1994 (2) SCC 406.
W.P.(C) 1098/2015 Page 2
4. In these circumstances, having regard to the fact that though the
petitioner was entitled to refixation of pension with effect from June, 2005,
the circumstance that she became aware of it much later and approached the
respondents in 2013 also has to be kept in mind.
5. Having regard to these factors, we are of the opinion that the justice of
the case demands that arrears should be granted at least to the commencing
three years from the date the first demand was made i.e. in October, 2013.
Consequently, we direct the respondents to ensure that payment of interest
on the arrears disbursed to the petitioner is made over to her at 12% per
annum with effect from 01.07.2010 within six weeks from today. The
direction to that effect is issued.
6. Similar direction is issued in respect of the 6th Central Pay
Commission pension revision arrears. Respondents' authorities are directed
to ensure strict compliance with the present order and give necessary
instructions to the bank in this regard.
7. Petitioner also claims certain relief against the Delhi Development
Authority. We are of the opinion that merits of those claims cannot be gone
into in these proceedings. It is open to the petitioner to file a fresh writ
petition in this regard. Liberty granted.
8. The writ petition is allowed in the above terms.
Order dasti.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT
(JUDGE)
DEEPA SHARMA
(JUDGE)
JULY 21, 2015/rb
W.P.(C) 1098/2015 Page 3
