JAMUNA MURMU Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, petitioner is aggrieved by stoppage of payment of family pension from January, 1997.

(2.) In short, the relevant facts are that the petitioner claims to be the widow of late Baijnath Kisku, who was a sepoy in Indian Military Service and died in the year 1957, Family pension was sanctioned to the petitioner in the year 1962 and since then she continued to get the same regularly till December, 1996. However, from January, 1997, her family pension was suddenly stopped, whereupon she on enquiry learnt that the treasury was unable to make payment of pension in absence of disbursal copy of P.P.O. No. F/304/62 (T.S. No. 285 A). She learnt that the Treasury Officer, Bhagalpur vide his letter No. 2486 dated 2-1-1999 had requested Chief Controller of Defence Accounts (Pension), Allahabad (U.P.) for issuance of duplicate copy of PRO and also reminder vide letter No. 2333 dated 4-9-2000 (Annexure 1). It appears that the petitioner also visited the office of the C.D.A. Allahabad and inquired about the said letter and requested them to issue duplicate PPO, but, she was told that they had not received any letter from the Treasury Officer, Bhagalpur. However, Assistant Accounts Officer, C.D.A. Allahabad vide his letter No. S. PPO39/F/2000 dated 13-11-2000 wrote to the Treasury Officer, Bhagalpur that in absence of loss certificate issuance of duplicate PPO was not possible and, thus, requested the Treasury Officer to send the same with details, such as, name of the pensioner, number of PPO and year of its issuance with loss certificate for issuance of duplicate copy of the same, However, having failed to get redressal from the said two authorities, petitioner filed the present writ application.

(3.) After this Court took serious view of the matter and also awarded cost of Rs. 1,000/- to be paid by the Chief-Controller of Defence Accounts, Allahabad from his pocket because there was no response from him to the notice of this Court, the Chief Controller of Defence Accountants issued duplicate PPO on 9-12-2002 and on that basis the Treasury Officer calculated the entire dues up to November, 2002 and on 19-12-2002 produced a Bank draft of Rs. 42,609/- payable to the petitioner, which was handed over to the learned Counsel for the petitioner. However, considering the gross lapses on the part of the authorities concerned, this Court found that the matter requires consideration for payment of penal interest to the petitioner. Accordingly, the matter was adjourned to enable the Chief Controller of Defence Accounts to file counter-affidavit. The matter was again adjourned on the request of the learned Counsel for the Union of India, whereupon a counter-affidavit on behalf of Union of India and its official (Respondent Nos. 1 & 2) has been filed on 20-12-2002, On the request of the Union of India, the matter was further adjourned on 20-1-2003 and on 27-1-2003, learned Counsel for the Union of India stated that the said respondents do not intend to file any further counter-affidavit and, accordingly, the matter was heard and the order was reserved.