WPC/6519/2011 of CHANDRA MOHAN MAHTO Vs UNION OF INDIA And ORS on 23 December 2021

1. The Union of India through Major Senior Record Officer forOfficer-in-Charge Record, Sikh Regiment Ramgarh Cantt, PO & PS-Ramgarh, District-Ramgarh (Jharkhand)

2. The Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (Pension)Allahabad

3. Major Senior Record Officer for Officer-in-Charge Records, SikhRegiment, Ramgarh Cantt, PO & PS-Ramgarh, District-Ramgarh4. Major, Officer-in-Charge, Pension Group for Officer-in-ChargeRecords, Sikh Regiment, Ramgarh Cantt, PO & PS-Ramgarh,District-Ramgarh

5. The Accounts Officer (Pension) Sikh Regiment, Ramgarh Cantt,PO & PS-Ramgarh, District-RamgarhPO & PS-Ramgarh, District-Ramgarh

6. The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Ramgarh Cantt, PO& PS-Ramgarh, District-Ramgarh … Respondents

-------

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

Order No. 09/Dated: 23rd December 2021

This is an assigned matter by an order dated30[th] November 2017 passed on the administrative side by Hon'blethe Acting Chef Justice, High Court of Jharkhand.

2. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayerto direct respondent no.6 to pay the commuted value of pensionwhich was sanctioned vide P.P.O dated 25[th] November 2003 withpenal interest at the rate of 10% per annum.

3. The petitioner who was appointed on the post of Sepoyon 28[th] June 1986 under Sikh Regiment superannuated fromservice with effect from 31[st] October 2003. His pension wasfinalized at Rs. 1329/- vide P.P.O dated 24[th] September 2003payable at State Bank of India, Ramgarh Cantt. It appears that forcommuted amount of pension which was capitalized at 2 W.P.(S) No. 6519 of 2011

Rs.1,13,884/- a separate P.P.O was issued on 25[th] November 2003and the same was communicated to the Bank on 1[st] January 2004.The petitioner was directed to appear before the Bank foridentification for release of the commuted amount of pension.

4. Mr. Nehru Mahto, the learned counsel for the petitioner,submits that the petitioner continued to approach therespondent-authorities, however, no step was taken in the matter.On 20[th] February 2009, the employer requested State Bank of Indiato look into the matter but nothing was done in the matter and itwas only after the petitioner issued legal notice on 27[th] May 2011to the State Bank of India, the principal amount of Rs. 1,13,884/-was paid to him on 20[th] April 2012.

5. Mr. Rohan Kashyap, the learned counsel, appears forthe State Bank of India and Ms. Leena Mukherjee, the learnedC.G.C, appears for the respondents.

6. The proceedings which followed after superannuation ofthe petitioner disclose that pension of the petitioner was fixedimmediately after his retirement and P.P.O for commuted value ofpension was also issued in time. Still, the petitioner was not paidthe capitalized amount of commuted pension but then exceptstating that he continued to approach the authorities the writpetition is completely silent on the steps taken by the petitionerbetween the period 9[th] March 2004 to 20[th] February 2009. Therespondents have disputed the claim of the petitioner andapparently the averments made by the petitioner in the writpetition involve adjudication on facts.

7. The truthfulness and genuineness of the statementsmade by the petitioner in the writ petition cannot be decided in thepresent proceeding and, therefore, this Court is not inclined toissue a direction to the respondents for payment of interest on thealleged delayed payment of the commuted value of pension. On thisissue, the writ petition is held not maintainable and, accordingly,W.P.(S) No. 6519 of 2011 is dismissed, however, with a liberty tothe petitioner to avail of other remedies as available to him in law.

Conclusion

(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)