Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE & THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN MONDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JANUARY 2024 / 25TH POUSHA, 1945 OP (CAT) NO.178 OF 2017 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT OA 180/2016 OF CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH PETITIONERS: 1 CHIEF MANAGER, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, (PRESENTLY STATE BANK OF INDIA), CENTRALIZED PENSION PROCESSING CENTRE, VAZHUTHACADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014. 2 BRANCH MANAGER, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, (PRESENTLY STATE BANK OF INDIA), KOORKKANCHERY BRANCH, THRISSUR-680 007. BY ADV SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN, STANDING COUNSEL RESPONDENTS:
1 K.SANKARAN, S/O. LATE KUNJU NAIR, SENIOR AUDITOR (RETD), OFFICE OF THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (AUDIT), SADARM, KARSHAKA NAGAR, PANAMUKKU, NEDUMPUZHA P.O., THRISSUR-680 007. 2 UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PENSION & PENSIONERS WELFARE SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110 066. 3 PAY & ACCOUNTS OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (AUDIT), KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 4 CHIEF CONTROLLER, CENTRAL PENSION ACCOUNTING OFFICE, TRIKOOT II COMPLEX, BHIKAJI8CAMA PLACE, R.K.PURAM, NEW DELHI-110 066. BY ADVS. SMT.CHANDINI G.NAIR SRI.T.V.VINU, CGC SRI.C.S.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR
THIS OP (CAT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15.01.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP(CAT) No.178/2017 2
JUDGMENT
A.Muhamed Mustaque, J.
The point that is to be considered primarily before this Court is as to the maintainability of the application filed by the party respondents before the Central Administrative Tribunal. Though this issue was not addressed by the Tribunal, this is a pure question of law and touching upon the inherent jurisdiction of the Tribunal. We are of the view that the question of jurisdiction can be raised even if it is the first time before this Court.
2. This original petition is filed by the Bank. The Bank is a disbursing authority of pension for the
Union Government. The applicant before the Tribunal retired from the office of the Accountant General (Audit), Thrissur, on 30.04.2002 as Senior Auditor. His monthly pension was fixed at Rs.3,708/-, at the time of retirement.
3. Based on the implementation of 6th Central
Pay Commission, he became eligible for payment of Rs.8,412/- as a revised pension with effect from 01.01.2006 onwards. However, the Bank without deducting the commuted value of Rs.1,480/- continued OP(CAT) No.178/2017 3 to pay full pension to the applicant with effect from August 2007. This was a mistake committed by the Banking officials. Now they sought to recover the same from the respondent-applicant. This was
challenged before the Tribunal. The Tribunal set aside the recovery. This is how the Bank approached this Court. The question regarding jurisdiction is essentially based on Sections 14 and 19 read with Section (3)(q) of the Administrative Tribunals Act,
1985. This is not a question of any deduction made
by the sanctioning authority. The Bank being a disbursing authority having a customer relationship with the respondent. The attempt of the Bank to recover from the respondent-applicant is because of the mistake committed by them. In such circumstances whether such recovery is possible or not will have to be decided based on the nature of the relationship. This issue could not have been entertained by the Tribunal in view of the fact that this is purely a dispute that arose out of a banking relationship. In view of the fact that the sanctioning authority had not decided to deduct any reduction from the pension, the mistake in disbursing can be only treated as a dispute arising out of such OP(CAT) No.178/2017 4 relationship between the service provider and the customer. In such circumstances, we are of the view that the impugned order has to be set aside, paving the way for the respondent-applicant to approach this Court or any other forum to challenge such recovery in accordance with law. The forum before which the respondent-applicant may approach, shall consider the delay involved in the matter as it was due to bona fide prosecution of the challenge before the
Tribunal with effect from 11.02.2016. No recovery shall be effected for a period of one month. The original petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE JUDGE Sd/- SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN JUDGE ln OP(CAT) No.178/2017 5 APPENDIX OF OP (CAT) 178/2017 PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF PPO NO. 6269990200235. ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER REVISION AUTHORITY DATED 11/11/2010. ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 1/1/2016 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF OA NO.180/00123/2016 FILED BEFORE THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH WITH ANNEXURES. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN OA NO.180/00123/2016. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONERS HEREIN IN O.A.NO.180/00123/2016 WITH ANNEXURES. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 23.1.2017 IN OA NO.180/123/2016. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF SAID CIRCULAR DATED 18.4.1991 ISSUED BY THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 17.3.2016 OF RESERVE BANK OF INDIA.