Jammu, Feb 12: In O.A./100/2026 (JAMMU) titled BASHIRAN BIBI Vs JAL SHAKTI DEPARTMENT after hearing CAT ordered as under:-
Heard the learned counsel for the applicant. Mr. A. A. Khan, learned counsel for the applicant, submits that the applicant’s husband retired on 31.03.2018.
After his retirement, his pension case was processed by respondent No. 4 and submitted to respondent No. 2 for fixation of pension and release of retiral benefits, including gratuity. Instead of fixing the pension of the applicant’s late husband and releasing the retiral benefits, respondent No. 3, vide communication dated 10.09.2018, directed respondent No. 4 to reexamine the pension case in light of a communication dated 06.06.2018 issued by the Finance Department, after the applicant’s husband had already retired.
Subsequently, vide communication No. PHEC/II/934 dated 29.06.2020, respondent No. 4 informed respondent No. 2 that the pay of the retiree had been re-fixed and that an amount of Rs. 8,86,101/- had been worked out as excess pay allegedly released to the applicant’s late husband on account of grant of a higher pay grade pursuant to Order No. PHEC/II/Estt./4224-27 dated 29.12.2013, in compliance with directions issued by the Hon’ble High Court in SWP No. 1179/2013, with effect from 11.06.1993, after making necessary entries in the service book by the concerned DDO.
As the retiral benefits were not released and the pension was not fixed on the basis of the last pay drawn, the applicant’s husband approached the Hon’ble High Court by way of SWP No. 2501/2018, which was subsequently transferred to this Tribunal and registered as TA No. 6098/2021.
The said TA was disposed of on 25.11.2021, directing that a representation be made before the competent authority and, upon receipt, the authority should consider and decide the matter by passing a speaking and reasoned order. Soon thereafter, the applicant’s husband suffered a life-threatening illness, remained under treatment for a prolonged period, and ultimately passed away on 02.03.2024.
After his demise, upon completion of all requisite formalities, the concerned Treasury Officer sanctioned/authorized family pension in favour of the applicant.
It was only after the applicant filed an application under the RTI Act before respondent No. 2, seeking details regarding the withholding of her late husband’s retiral benefits and the fixation of his monthly pension, that she came to know that her retiral benefits amounting to Rs. 8,86,101/-, including gratuity, had been withheld by the respondents and that the pension had not been fixed on the basis of the last pay drawn as on 31.03.2018.
The respondents are effecting recoveries from the applicant’s family pension in violation of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), (2015) 4 SCC 334; AIR 2015 SC 696.
Issue notices to respondents. Mr. Rajesh Thapa, learned A.A.G and Mr. Sumant Sudan, learned counsel appear and accept notices on behalf of the respondents No. 1, 3 & 4 and Respondent no. 2 respectively.
List on 30.03.2026.
Let reply be filed by the respondents by or on the next date of hearing with advance copy to learned counsel for the applicant.
In the meanwhile, as an interim measure, the respondents are restrained from making any recovery from the pension of the applicant till the next date of hearing
|