Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 3RD BHADRA, 1945 PETITIONERS:
1 BALAKRISHNAN A, (EX- 37070M), SON OF THE LATE CHATHAKKA A, HAVILDAR (NURSING ASSISTANT) (RETIRED), 44 ASSAM RIFLES, MUKACHUNG, NAGALAND- 932044, RESIDING AT CHOLAYIL HOUSE, PALLIKKAL, MALAPPURAM, KERALA-, PIN - 673636 2 MATHAI K O, AGED 62 YEARS(EX- M/370692), SON OF THE LATE OUSEPH K P, HAVILDAR (NURSING ASSISTANT) (RETIRED), ASSAM RIFLES COMPOSITE HOSPITAL, SHOKHUVI, P O DIMAPUR, NAGALAND- 797 115, RESIDING AT KAYATHAKUMBIL, KOODATHAI BAZAR, MIKAVU P O, KOZHIKODE, KERALA-, PIN - 3 VARGHESE M P, AGED 63 YEARS(E/380388A), SON OF THE LATE M M PAILY, RIFLEMAN (CARPENTER) (RETIRED), 10 ASSAM RIFLES, SARCHIP, MIZORAM- 932 010, RESIDING AT MAANJA MATHATHIL HOUSE, KALIYA ROAD P O, CHELAKKARA, THRISSUR-, PIN - BY ADVS. REKHA VASUDEVAN SOYA D.C MAHESH C.R. ELIZABETH V.JOSEPH ROJIT ZACHARIAH
RESPONDENTS:
1 UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001 2 THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, ASSAM RIFLES, THE DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF ASSAM RIFLES, NONGRIMMAV, LAITUMKHRAH, RYNJAH VIA GORALINE, SHILLONG, MEGHALAYA-, PIN - 793011 3 THE COL RECORDS, SO-1, PENSION (NE) RECORDS BRANCH, DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF ASSAM RIFLES, NONGRIMMAV, LAITUMKHRAH, RYNJAH VIA GORALINE, SHILLONG, MEGHALAYA-, PIN - 793011
4 THE SENIOR ACCOUNTS OFFICER, PAY AND ACCOUNTS OFFICE (AR), MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, OLD DGAR CAMPUS, NONGRIMMAV, LAITUMKHRAH, SHILLONG, MEGHALAYA-, PIN - 793011 5 THE SECTION OFFICER-I, UPAO(NE), ASSAM RIFLES, OLD DGAR CAMPUS, NONGRIMMAV, LAITUMKHRAH, SHILLONG, MEGHALAYA-, PIN - 793011 6 THE ASSISTANT ACCOUNTS OFFICER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, CENTRAL PENSION ACCOUNTING OFFICE, TRIKOOT 2, BHIKAJI CAMA PLACE, NEW DELHI, PIN - SRI.M.PRENJITH KUMAR[CGC]
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.08.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The controversy in these case relates to a period when the petitioners were out of service and paid pension, as if they had superannuated. The facts presented reveal that they were subsequently reinstated, thus being eligible to arrears of salary; but which has now been held up by 3rd and 4th respondents, objecting to the fact that the petitioners have already obtained their pensions qua the same period and thus requiring them to make an undertaking that they will allow either the amount of pension earlier obtained to be adjusted against the arrears of salary, or that they will repay the same by way of cheque or such other instrument.
2. Smt.Rekha Vasudevan - learned counsel for the
petitioners, vehemently argued that no recovery is possible from her clients on account of the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in State of Punjab & others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) [2015 (1) KLT 429]; but conceded that it is not equitable for the petitioners to maintain that they are entitiled to both pension and salary for the same period. He submitted that, therefore, her clients do not stand in the way of the 3 rd and 4th respondents adjusting the amounts of pension already paid to them by the 2nd respondent, from the arrears of salary; and that they are willing to make an undertaking to such effect.
3. Sri.M.Prenjith Kumar - learned Central Government
Counsel, submitted that there is no reason for any controversy in this case because the petitioners have only been asked to give an undertaking, as reflected in Ext.P11, supported by a blank cheque. He explained that this is to ensure that the two departments are not put to prejudice on account of the adjustments to be made as mentioned above.
4. I am afraid that I cannot find the request of the 2 nd
respondent to the petitioners, to favour them with a “blank” cheque, to be tenable because this is not permissible in law. It is now well settled that no person can now be asked to issue a “blank” cheque, without the figure being shown therein, since this would amount to putting him under an legally impermissible sanction.
5. However, as regards the undertaking which is reflected
in Ext.P11, I do not see why the petitioners cannot be asked to effect the same, particularly when their learned counsel concedes that they are agreeable to have their earlier amounts of pension adjusted from the arrears of salary. In the afore circumstances, I allow this Writ Petition at the admission stage, with the consent of both sides, directing the petitioners to make an undertaking as in the format reflected in Ext.P11; but making it clear that no deposit will be insisted from the petitioners, though the amounts received by them as pension earlier can be adjusted from the amounts to be paid to them towards arrears of salary, in terms of Ext.P4 judgment. On the afore undertaking being given by the petitioners and subject to my observations above, necessary action by the respondents shall be completed and the eligible amounts disbursed after adjustment, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. I reiteratingly clarify that it will be available to the respondents 3 and 4 to take any apposite measure for adjustment of the amounts as afore, for which, the 2 nd respondent will also co- operate fully. It is also necessary to add that the pension payable to the petitioners for the future months will not be, in any manner, effected by the afore directions. This Writ Petition is thus ordered. Sd/-DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, JUDGE lsn APPENDIX OF WP(C) 28631/2023 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DISCHARGE CERTIFICATE OF THE 1ST PETITIONER Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE DISCHARGE CERTIFICATE OF THE 2ND PETITIONER Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE DISCHARGE CERTIFICATE OF THE 3RD PETITIONER Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
31.08.2022 IN WP(C) NO. 62 OF 2015 AND CONNECTED CASES OF THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG AS DOWNLOADED FROM THE WEBSITE OF THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO RETIRING PENSION/PEN/NE/REC-LEGAL/2022/678 DATED 30.09.2022 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. PAQ/AR/PEN/COURT CASE REIN/2023-24/114 DATED 16.05.2023 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. II.12015/PEN/NE SER PEN/ 2023 DATED 25.05.2023 ISSUED FOR THE 3RD RESPONDENT Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. I.11011/ARCH-FIN/2023/2327 DATED 30.05.2023 ISSUED FOR THE IG (MED SUPDT) TO THE 2ND PETITIONER Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.
10AR/FIN/380388/2023/46 DATED 01.06.2023 ISSUED FOR THE COMMANDANT 10 ASSAM RIFLES TO THE 3RD PETITIONER Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. FIN/CC/370701/BA/2023/128 DATED 02.06.2023 ISSUED BY THE LT. COL, 44 ASSAM RIFLES TO THE 1ST PETITIONER
Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. 44AR/FIN/ARREAR/2023/328 DATED 22.07.2023 ISSUED FOR THE COMMANDANT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. CPPC/TVM/10286/28472/2023-24 DATED 09.08.2023 ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER Exhibit P13 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. CPPC/TVM/11315182175/2023-24 DATED 09.08.2023 ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND PETITIONER Exhibit P14 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.CPPC/TVM/3031179963/2023-24 DATED 09.08.2023 ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD PETITIONER RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL TRUE COPY P.A TO JUDGE LSN