RADHA RANI Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One Madan Lal retired ASI died on 9/9/2012. Consequent upon this he left behind his widow Radha Rani out of whom deceased had three children who all are above 60 years of age. It is pertinent to mention here prior to this marriage with Radha Rani, the deceased was married with Manjeet Rani who died earlier on 31/11/2008 without any children. The factum of marriage with these two ladies was well reflected by the deceased in his pension papers and there is nothing to put to question this aspect of the matter or any dispute over the sharing of the pension. The State Bank of India Pension Processing Centre Chandigarh issued demand notice dtd. 2/8/2019 (Annexure P-6) for recovery of excess pension amount of Rs.3,64,451.00 from the pension account of the petitioner widow being excess pension on account of drawing of excess basic pension from 10/9/2012 till 31/7/2019 of Rs.3520.00 in stead of Rs.1760.00 and called upon the petitioner for deduction of Rs.2000.00 per month from her deposit account with the bank. Faced with situation the petitioner has knocked at the doors of this court in the instant civil writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking writ in the nature of certiorari/mandamus praying for quashing of the orders dtd. 2/8/2019 and 28/11/2019 (Annexure P-6- and P-9) seeking restraint for recovering of money from her pension.

(2.) Respondent No. 1-Department in its reply though admitted the facts as detailed in the petition and claimed that vide Office Memo No. 10428/A dtd. 24/4/1983 pension of Madan Lal was sanctioned and released by the Accountant General Punjab, Chandigarh, alongwith death-cum-retirement gratuity and payment of commuted pension which was released to the retiree by his office after his retirement and admitted factum of two legal and valid marriages of Madan Lal ASI and denied for want of knowledge how the deductions were being undertaken.

(3.) Respondents No. 3 and 4 took the plea that petitioner was entitled for 50% of family pension even after the death of Smt. Manjeet Rani first wife of the retiree and took the plea that they are supposed to give pension commensurate with the share of the petitioner. It is claimed that since petitioner has been paid 100% of the family pension in stead of 50% of pension, she is entitled to return the excess amount.