Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Jasmine vs Punjab National Bank Through Its on 1 May, 2024
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
WP(C) No. 2680/2021(O&M)
Reserved on 19.04.2024
Pronounced on 01.05.2024
Jasmine, Age 24 years, .....Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)
D/o. Late Shri Sadiq, R/o. Kamini
Market, Nagrota, Jammu
Through: Ms. Manpreet Kour, Advocate
vs
1. Punjab National Bank through its ..... Respondent(s)
Chairman, Corporate Office, Plot
No. 4, Sector-10 Dwarka, New
Delhi-110075
2. General Manager, Punjab National
Bank, Corporate Office, Plot No. 4,
Sector-10 Dwarka, New Delhi,-
110075
3. Circle Head, Jammu Punjab
Natiional Bank, Gupta, Tower, Rail
Head Complex, Bahu Plaza,
Gandhi Nagar, Jammu-180004
4. Branch Manager, Punjab National
Bank, Main Branch, Shalamar
Road, Jammu
5. Branch Manager, Punjab National
Bank, Nagrota, Jammu
6. Principal Controller of Defence
Accounts (Pensions), Allahabad,
U. P.
7. Station Commander, Station
Headquarter, Nagrota, C/o. 56
APO.
Through: Mr. Praveen Kapahi, Adv. for Nos. 1 to 5
Mr. Vishal Sharma, DSGI for Nos. 6 and 7
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH
Mr. Adarsh Bhagat, GA
OSWAL, for R 1
JUDGE
2
WP(C) No. 2680/2021
JUDGMENT
1. The father of the petitioner, who was working with the respondent No. 7,
died in harness on 26.11.2007. The respondent No. 6 issued the Pension
Payment Order (PPO) dated 07.06.2011 in favour of the petitioner in
respect of 1/3rd of the gratuity and also fixed the family pension at
enhanced rate amounting to Rs. 4180/- per month with effect from
27.11.2007 to 26.11.2017 and at normal rate for Rs. 3500/- per month
with effect from 27.11.2017 to 16.10.2022. The respondent No. 6 also
released one-third share of gratuity each in favour of two brothers of the
petitioner vide PPOs (two in numbers) dated 07.06.2011. The petitioner
claims to have an account with the respondent No. 5 and vide PPO dated
07.06.2011 issued in favour of the petitioner, the amount was directed to
be credited in the said account.
2. The claim projected by the petitioner in the present petition is that the
respondent-Bank is not releasing the amount of family pension fixed by
respondent No. 6 in the account of the petitioner and as such, has prayed
for directing the respondent Nos. 6 and 7 to liaise with respondent Nos. 4
and 5 for releasing and crediting the arrears along with family pension
sanctioned vide PPO No. C/AOC/FP/10228/2011 dated 07.06.2011 in her
account.
3. The respondent Nos. 1 to 5-Bank have filed the reply stating therein that
after receipt of the Pension Payment Order issued in favour of the
petitioner, the amount was credited to the account of the deceased father
of the petitioner on 01.10.2011 and was reverted to the account of
respondent No. 6, as for 11 years, no one came forward to claim the said
amount and complete the requisite formalities including the submission of
Life Certificate. It is further stated that the consolidated amount of Rs.
2,96,204/- was credited into the account of the petitioner after the receipt
of PPO issued by the respondent No. 6 and the petitioner for eleven long
years from the date of credit of the amount did not approach the
respondent-Bank to claim pension and fulfill the requisite formalities for
release of the pension in her favour including the Life Certificate and as
such, the amount was reverted to the respondent No.6.
4. Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 have also filed the response and have admitted
issuance of PPOs issued in favour of the petitioner and her brothers. The
respondent Nos. 6 and 7 have also admitted the fixing of family pension
as mentioned in the PPO and have also placed on record the copies of all
the three PPOs along with their reply.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondents are
under obligation to pay the amount due to the petitioner on account of
family pension in terms of PPO issued by the respondent No. 6 and as
such, the writ petition deserves to be allowed.
6. On the contrary, Mr. Parveen Kapahi, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent-Bank has submitted that the petitioner did not complete the
requisite formalities and even did not approach the Bank for release of the
amount, as such, the amount was reverted to the account of respondent
No. 6.
7. Mr. Vishal Sharma, learned DSGI appearing for respondent Nos. 6 and 7
has submitted that the amount was to be released by the Bank, once the
PPO was issued by the answering respondents.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
9. A perusal of the record reveals that vide PPO No. CAOC/FP/10228/2011
dated 07.06.2011, respondent No. 6 sanctioned the family pension and
also the amount of gratuity of Rs 32,353/- in favour of the petitioner. The
contention raised by the petitioner is that the amount has not been released
in favour of the petitioner despite issuance of PPO, whereas the stand of
the respondent-Bank is that the petitioner did not approach the Bank for
completion of requisite formalities, as a result of which, the amount was
reverted to the respondent No. 6. Respondent No. 6 has admitted the
issuance of PPO in favour of the petitioner. It is established beyond any
shadow of doubt in view of the response filed by the respondent-Bank that
the amount, due to the petitioner, has not been released in her favour but
reverted to the respondent No. 6.
10. In view of the above, the instant writ petition is disposed of by directing
the respondent No. 6 to coordinate with the respondent Nos. 4 & 5 and to
ensure the release of the amount in favour of the petitioner due to her on
account of family pension fixed in terms of PPO No.
C/AOC/FP/10228/2011 dated 07.06.2011. The respondent No. 6 shall do
the needful with in the period of three months from the date a copy of this
order is made available to the respondent No. 6 by the petitioner. The
petitioner shall also complete the requisite formalities on her part as
required by the respondent-Bank for the release of the amount in her
favour.
(RAJNESH OSWAL)
JUDGE
JAMMU
01.05.2024
Rakesh PS
Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No
Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No
