Manjura v. State Of Punjab And Others
!" #$%$ &'(()
'
*+ (,, +
!
"
#$"
% &'!( )
% * +++++ ,+-( .
/ , -
is praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the action of the respondents in effecting recovery from the family pension of the petitioner w.e.f. February, 2019 onwards and to refund the amount so recovered till date.
2.
The brief facts of the case are that husband of the petitioner was working on the post of Arts and Craft Teacher in the Department of Education, Punjab. In the year 1989, various writ petitions were filed by the Teachers belonging to the cadre of classical and vernacular teachers seeking pay parity. The abovesaid writ petitions were allowed by this Court vide judgment dated 07.05.2009 -1-
(Annexure P-1) passed in CWP No.16380 of 1989 titled as Balbir Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and others along with other connected matters, wherein it was held that the Arts and Craft Teachers were entitled to the same pay-scale, as has been granted to the Hindi, Punjabi and Urdu Teachers i.e. equal to the master cadre. After passing of the abovesaid judgment dated 07.05.2009 (Annexure P-1), the respondent-Department granted the said pay-scale to the Arts and Craft Teachers as well as to some other categories of Teachers. The pay-scale of the husband of the petitioner was also fixed in terms of the abovesaid judgment dated 07.05.2009 (Annexure P-1). Unfortunately, the husband of the petitioner died on 02.04.2012 during the service. The family pension was released to the petitioner vide letter dated 14.08.
2012 (Annexure P-2) taking into consideration the last pay drawn by the deceased husband of the petitioner revised from time to time. The State of Punjab filed LPA against the judgment dated 07.05.2009 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned Single Bench, which was allowed by Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 14.08.2012 (Annexure P-3). In pursuance of the judgment dated 14.08.2012 (Annexure P-3) passed by Divison Bench of this Court, the pay-scale of Arts and Craft Teachers including some other categories of Teachers were revised and were placed at the lower pay-scale. In pursuance of the abovesaid revision of pay-scale, the family pension of the petitioner was also revised and refixed w.e.f. 03.04.2012 vide letter dated 12.01.2016 (Annexure P-4). To the shock of the petitioner, respondent No.
3 started effecting recovery of an amount of Rs.
from the family pension of the petitioner w.e.f. February, 2019. An amount of Rs.81,000/- in total has been recovered by respondent No.3 from the family pension of the petitioner till November, 2019. Aggrieved against the action of respondent No.3 in effecting recovery of Rs.9,000/- per month w.e.f. February, 2019, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
3.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in terms of the judgment dated 07.05.2009 (Annexure P-1) passed by this Court, the pay-scale of Arts and Craft Teachers were increased i.e. equal to the master cadre and on the basis of that, pay-scale of deceased husband of the petitioner was revised. He further submits that taking into consideration, the last pay drawn by deceased husband of the petitioner, the petitioner was granted family pension. It is the case of learned counsel for the petitioner that grant of higher pay-scale was not on the basis of any fraud, concealment or misrepresentation of facts on the part of petitioner. As such, no recovery could have been effected from the family pension of the petitioner. It is also the case of learned counsel for the petitioner that family pension was released to the petitioner in the year 2012, as such, now after 07 years, no recovery can be effected from the family pension of the petitioner. 4.
Learned State counsel submits that family pension of the petitioner was refixed taking into consideration the judgment dated 14.08.2012 (Annexure P-3) passed by Division Bench of this Court, vide letter dated 12.01.2016 (Annexure P-4). It has also been contended by learned State counsel that State has taken no action to -3-
recover the amount from the family pension of the petitioner nor any recovery from the family pension has been effected by the State. 5.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.3Bank submits that the Bank has no power to increase or decrease the amount to be paid to the petitioner. He contends that respondent No.3Bank is only a disbursing agent, who disburse the family pension to the petitioner as per the direction of respondent-State. He further contends that in light of the letter dated 12.01.2016 (Annexure P-4), the respondent No.3-Bank has started effecting recovery from the family pension of the petitioner w.e.f. February, 2019. . ,
'
( -
/ 0 1
-
% &
1 1
2 ,
1 % &'!(
3453453.
7 '*8
1
1
3453453.
7 '*8 1
"
9:8 - -
; <
1 #
1
3453453.6 7 '*8- - 1 1
= 1
-
1'
-4-
1 > - - ? 1
1 #
!
> 1
- 1 0
1
-
1
,
% &'
!( - (
1 !(
1
@ 1) A
>
-
1
0
'
B34 ,
- -
1 - 1
( 1
1
!
1
-
1 1
- -
-
1
-
- 8
1
>',,, >',
6 " C>C" C#C
8
8
1
-
-
1
1 -5-
8
1
- 1
1
8
1 -
- 1
?
1
1
?
- (
8,1
- >
1
- ?
1
- -
?
C
D 35
> '
!
> !"##
$%
& %'"
( )"
"
!"
*+&,'"-.
( " " !"
)#
$'"/ 01
(
"#") -
1
1 !(
; 1
11.
Taking into consideration the fact that no direction/authorization was given by the respondent-Department to respondent No.3-Bank to effect recovery from family pension of the petitioner and the judgments referred above, the present writ petition deserves to be allowed.
-6-
12.
Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed. Respondent No.3-Bank is directed to refund the amount which has been recovered from the family pension of the petitioner -
54
1
13.
Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand(s) disposed of.
(() ,+ E
( ; % E
% -7-