Kerala High Court
Metilda Fernandez vs Union Of India on 11 June, 2024
Author: Amit Rawal
Bench: Amit Rawal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.
TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 21ST JYAISHTA, 1946
OP (CAT) NO. 187 OF 2018
AGAINST THE ORDER IN OA NO.316 OF 2017 OF CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE
TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH
PETITIONER/APPLICANT:
MATILDA FERNANDEZ
AGED 74 YEARS
W/O LATE JACKSON FERNANDEZ ANGEL COTTAGE HOUSE NO.156 KADAIKULAM
COLONY KOTTAPURAM P.O VIZHINIJAM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695521
BY ADVS.
SHAMEENA SALAHUDHEEN
R.SHABANA
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER WESTERN RAILWAY CHURCH GATE
MUMBAI-400008
2 THE DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER
WESTERN RAILWAY, MUMBAI CENTRAL DIVISION, MUMBAI - 400 008.
3 SENIOR DIVISIONAL PERSONNEL OFFICER
DIVISIONAL OFFICE, WESTERN RAILWAY, MUMBAI CENTRAL DIVISION,
MUMBAI - 400 008.
4 DIVISIONAL ACCOUNTS OFFICER
OFFICE OF THE FINANCIAL ADVISOR AND CHIEF ACCOUNTS OFFICER,
WESTERN RAILWAY, MUMBAI - 400 008.
5 STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE
CENTRALISED PENSION PROCESSING CENTRE, CHEMPEKALOM BUILDING,
TRIVANDRUM - 695 012.
BY ADV SRI.MATHEW BOBBY KURIAN, SC, RAILWAYS
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI K S PRENJITH KUMAR CGC
THIS OP (CAT) HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 11.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
OP (CAT) NO. 187 OF 2018
2
JUDGMENT
Amit Rawal, J.
Petitioner is the widow of Sri. Jackson Fernandez, who while
serving in the Railway Department died in harness ie., on 12.8.1994.
At the time of the death, he was working as MW (Fitter). Thereafter,
the petitioner had been receiving the family pension but after the
recommendation of the 6th pay revision commission, pension was
revised to Rs.4661/- + DA. In 2016 without issuing any show cause
notice, pension was reduced to Rs.3,500/- and recovery was sought
to be effected as evident from the communication dated 29.9.2016,
Annexure A3. The aforementioned action of the respondent was
challenged. Contesting respondents supported the action taken by
them for recovery on the premise that the PPO was issued for
streamlining the pension disbursement, Annexure A2. The
principle in State of Punjab and others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer)
( AIR 2015 SC 696) would not be applicable in view of the fact, in
case, undertaking for recovery is given the ratio decidendi culled
out in High Court of Punjab and Haryana & Ors. v. Jagdev Singh AIR
2016 SC 3523 .
2. The learned Tribunal disposed of the OA in the following
manner:
8. In view of the law laid down by the Jagdev Singh's decision
we are left with no alternative but to reject the OA. However, in
view of the age of the applicant as well as her penurious
OP (CAT) NO. 187 OF 2018
circumstances mentioned by the learned counsel for the applicant,
we direct that further recovery will be restricted to Rs.1000/-
(Rupees one Thousand Only) per month. This would at least have
the effect of alleviating the difficulties of the applicant to some
degree. The O.A stands disposed of as above. No costs.
3. The aforementioned observation reveals that the future
recovery has been confined to Rs.1000/- whereas the previous
recovery has not been stayed by relying upon the ratio in Jagdev
Singh's case.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
declaration given by the petitioner was to the bank and not to the
department, therefore the ratio in Jagdev Singh's case would not be
applicable much less even no opportunity of hearing was given.
5. On the other hand, counsel representing the respondents
supported the findings and submitted that there is no illegality or
perversity in the order.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and
appraised the paper book.
7. There is no doubt that before causing the recovery no
opportunity of hearing was given. The learned Tribunal confined the
relief only on this account ie., the violation of the principles of
natural justice and have blindly relied upon the ratio considered in
Jagdev Singh (supra) for, the undertaking if looked into, was only
submitted to the Bank and not to the department. Accordingly, the
order of the Tribunal is set aside. Annexure A2 and A3 are
OP (CAT) NO. 187 OF 2018
consequently quashed. Liberty is granted to the respondents to take
action by affording an opportunity of hearing and pass the order in
accordance with law. OP(CAT) is allowed. There will be no further
recovery. The respondents are directed to disburse the previous
pension till passing of the fresh orders, if they deem it appropriate.
Sd/-
AMIT RAWAL
JUDGE
Sd/-
sab EASWARAN S.
JUDGE
OP (CAT) NO. 187 OF 2018
APPENDIX OF OP (CAT) 187/2018
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE O.A.NO.316/2017 ON THE
FILE OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE
TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH ORIGINAL
APPLICATION.
Annexure A-2 A TRUE COPY OF THE REVISED PPO DATED
21.8.2015
Annexure A3 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED
29.9.2016 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT
ALONG WITH THE STATEMENT
Annexure A-1 A TRUE COPY OF THE PPO NO. WR/41123/179966
OF THE APPLICANT'S HUSBAND
Annexure A4 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION MADE BY
THE APPLICANT.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED ON
BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED ON
BEHALF OF RESPONDENT NO.5.
RESPONDENT ANNEXURES
Annexure R5(a) A TRUE COPY OF THE UNDERTAKING DATED NIL OF
THE APPLICANT.
Annexure R5(b) A TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 1.07.2015
OF THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA
Annexure R5(c) A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 17.03.2016
OF THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA
Annexure R5(d) A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17.04.2015
IN O.A NO. 060/00561/2014 OF THE HONOURABLE
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH
BENCH
OP (CAT) NO. 187 OF 2018
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER FILED BY THE
APPLICANT.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27/7/2018 IN
O.A.NO.180/00316/2017 OF THE HONOURABLE
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM.
