DHARAM PAUL SINGLA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is seeking quashing of letter dated 14.01.2020 (Annexure P-9), whereby his representation to accept the recovery amount of contributory fund and issuance of pensionary benefits has been rejected by respondent No.2-New India Assurance Company Ltd.

(2.) Petitioner joined the respondent department on 01.10.1974 as Typist and his work and conduct was to the satisfaction of the department. During the service period, petitioner opted for Contributory Provident Fund. He retired from the respondent department after attaining the age of superannuation on 31.10.2010 as Assistant Manager (Marketing). He received the amount deposited in the Provident Fund along with the contribution made by the department. As per notification dated 23.04.2019, the Central Govt. amended the General Insurance (Employees) Pension Scheme 1995. As per the said scheme, a retired person had to deposit the contributory fund within ninety (90) days as specified in clause (a). Respondent No.1, thereafter, issued administrative instructions dated 17.05.2019 (Annexure P-2). Pursuant to the said instructions, petitioner was informed vide letter dated 26.09.2019 (Annexure P-3) that if, he deposits an amount of Rs.5,36,009/-, his case for pension under the amended Scheme of 2019 can be considered. As per letter (Annexure P-4), petitioner was informed about the mode of payment and the account, in which, the amount was to be deposited.

(3.) Case of the petitioner is that, he deposited the amount of Rs.5,36,009/- through RTGS on 05.10.2019 along with scanned copy of undertaking. Vide email dated 06.10.2019 (Annexure P-5), petitioner informed respondent No.3 that amount of Rs.5,36,009/- was deposited vide UTR No.SIBLR201900500064358 dated 05.10.2019. He also attached the scannd copy of the undertaking. Thereafter, petitioner received one SMS, whereby he was informed about the successful debit amount by way of RTGS. This fact was acknowledged by the Regional Office as the same was recommended by him to the respondent No.3 vide email dated 04.12.2019 (Annexure P-6). Petitioner, thereafter, submitted application form along with other documents to respondent No.4. He had completed his option form and RTGS well in time as the last date for submission of the option and refund of the amount was 21.10.2019. On 03.12.2019, petitioner visited his bank and obtained the bank statement, from where, he found that entry of Rs.5,36,009/- was there in his account. Then, he came to know that it was the refund of RTGS as the amount was returned on the same day due to non mentioning of NIAPF in the account number, while doing the process of transfer online. Due to this bonafide error, the RTGS failed and the pension papers of the petitioner were not processed. Petitioner again submitted a draft of Rs.5,43,940/- on 21.12.2019 along with representation dated 22.12.2019 (Annexure P-7). Thereafter, he sent a reminder dated 17.02.2020 (Annexure P-8) to respondent No.3. Eventually, case of the petitioner was rejected by passing the impugned order dated 14.01.2020 (Annexure P-9).