Himachal Pradesh High Court
Decided On : 10.1.2023 vs State Of H.P. And Ors on 10 January, 2023
Bench: Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Virender Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA
CWP No. 4/2023
Decided on : 10.1.2023
Surender Kumar .....Petitioner
.
Versus
State of H.P. and ors. ....Respondents
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge.
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1No
For the Petitioner: Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, A.G. with
Mr. Y. W. Chauhan, Sr. Addl. A.G.,
r Mr. Y. P. S. Dhaulta, Addl. A.G.,
Mr. J. S. Guleria, Dy.A.G. &
Mr. Rajat Chauhan, Law Officer for
respondents No. 1 to 4.
Mr. Rajinder Thakur, CGSC, for
respondent No.5.
_____________________________________________________________________
Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge (oral)
Notice. Mr. Rajat Chauhan, Law Officer and Mr.
Rajinder Thakur, Central Government Counsel, appear and waive
service of notice on behalf of the respective respondents.
2 The instant petition has been filed for grant of the
following substantive relief:
"that the letter at Annexure P-3, whereby an amount of
Rs.2,70,526/- has been directed to be recovered from the
petitioner may kindly be quashed and set aside and the
respondents may further be restrained from effecting
1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
recovery from the petitioner, in the interest of justice and
fair play."
.
3 Wife of the petitioner, Smt. Nirmala Devi, who was
working as JBT in the Department of Elementary Education,
unfortunately died on 3.9.2004, leaving behind her husband i.e.
petitioner and two children as legal heirs. The petitioner was
granted family pension, which commenced from 4.9.2004, but
the same was stopped from December 2010 on the pretext that
the petitioner had remarried on 11.5.2005. It is thereafter that
the respondents have now sought to make recovery of
Rs.2,70,526/- from the petitioner on account of over payment of
family pension made to him even after he remarried. Hence, the
instant petition.
4 It is vehemently contended by Mr. Ramakant Sharma,
Advocate, that the order of recovery is not only bad in law, but is
in teeth of the judgment rendered by this Court in batch of
petitions lead being CWP No. 3145/2019, titled as S.S.
Chaudhary vs. State of H.P., decided on 24.3.2022.
5 We are at complete loss to understand how the
aforesaid judgment can come to rescue of the petitioner herein,
because therein the Court was only dealing with recovery that
was sought to be effected from government employees, whereas
in the instant case, recovery is sought to be effected not from a
.
government employee, but from a recipient of family pension on
account of death of his wife.
6 It is more than settled that family pension is payable
to widow or widower upto the date of death or re-marriage,
whichever is earlier. (Refer: Rule 54(6) of the CCS Pension
(Rules), 1972)
7 Once that be so, obviously no fault can be found with
the action of the respondents when they decided to stop paying
family pension to the petitioner and have now sought for recovery
of the excess amount after the petitioner re-married.
8 In view of aforesaid discussions, we find no merit in
the instant petition and the same is accordingly dismissed, so
also the pending application(s), if any.
(Tarlok Singh Chauhan)
Judge
(Virender Singh)
10.1.2023 Judge
(pankaj)
