KAUSHLAYA DEVI Vs. UNION OF INDIA (UOI)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner, Smt. Kaushalya Devi, is the widow of Prakash Chand. The said Prakash Chand was serving in the Indian Army. He retired from Army in the year 1977 and started receiving the regular service pension from the Army. In the year 1981, the said Prakash Chand took up employment in Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation as a driver. He died in harness due to heart attack on 27.12.1987. During his service with the Maharashtra State Transport Corporation (for short: the Corporation) he was making contributions under the Family Pension Scheme, 1971 (for short: the Scheme) formulated by the Central Government under the provisions of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. Under this Scheme, the Petitioner is entitled to receive family pension at the fixed rate of Rs. 450/- per month.

(2.) The Petitioner till July, 1991 was being paid family pension under the Scheme as well as from the Army. On 8.8.1991 the Petitioner received a communication from Respondent No. 3 informing her that her Army family pension had been stopped. She was further called upon to pay back a sum of Rs. 21,648/- which amount she had received as family pension from the Army Authorities. The army family pension was stopped on the ground that she was in receipt of family pension under the Scheme and as such army family pension was not admissible since under the law/rules two family pensions were not admissible. A copy of such communication was also endorsed to Assistant Commissioner Provident Fund, Nasik informing him about the stoppage of army family pension, the Manager, State Bank of India, Hamirpur, was also directed to withhold the amount lying to the credit of the Petitioner in her account.

(3.) Further case of the Petitioner is that though the amount of family pension under the Scheme is being regularly sent by the Assistant Commissioner Provident Fund, Nasik, by remitting the same by cheques to the State Bank of India, Hamirpur for crediting the same in her account, the said Bank is not releasing the same to her in pursuance of the communication received by it from Respondent No. 3.