D. JANAMMA Vs. THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner and her daughter were regularly receiving the monthly pension, which was stopped on December, 2011. On enquiry, the petitioner was told that there was some mistake in computation and that the pension was paid in excess, over and above, what is legally due to the petitioner as family pension. On enquiry with the 2nd respondent Bank the petitioner was informed that the first respondent had inhibited operation of the account of the petitioner as per Ext. R1(a). Ext. R1(a) also directed that the amounts credited in the account should be re -transferred to the 1st respondent, since refund of the excess amount paid had to be made from the petitioner.

(2.) IT is submitted by the learned Standing Counsel for the Provident Fund Organisation that despite Ext. R1(a), Provident Fund Organisation has not effected refund of the amounts but had merely interdicted operation of the account. It was in such circumstances, that the petitioner has approached this Court challenging Ext. P5 communication issued in pursuance to her request wherein it was directed that the excess amounts paid coming to Rs. 252361/ - has to be refunded and only then, the pension account of the petitioner maintained with the 2nd respondent would be allowed to be operated.

(3.) IN the present case also, the pension granted from the year 1997 was a negligible amount of Rs. 2198/ - with which the petitioner would have eked out a living along with her daughter. The excess drawl again was not on the fault of the petitioner or on any misrepresentation made by petitioners, but was only a computation mistake committed by the 1st respondent. The principle extracted by the Division Bench, from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Col. B.J. Akkara (Retd.) v. Government of India and others ( : 2006 (11) SCC 709) applied on all fours. The widow of the pensioner would have spend the pension paid to her to sustain her family's existence and going by the amount drawn it could have been only a basic sustenance not resulting in any amassment of wealth. The upkeep of the family would have consumed the entire amount and an order of refund from the future pension would further taper down an already reduced pension.