news details |
|
|
| HC orders recovery of excessive pension drawn by soldier | | | EARLY TIMES REPORT
JAMMU, May 29: The high court today ordered recovery of excessive pension amount drawn by a former Naib-Subedar. A division bench of the court comprising Chief Justice Dr Aftab Saikia and Justice Sunil Hali issued the order o9n a petition filed by the Union of India.
The basic issue to be decided was as to whether the respondent Santokh Singh retired as Havildar or Naib-Subedar and consequentially whether he was entitled to pension of Havildar or Naib-Subedar.
The judgment written Chief Justice Dr. Aftab H Saikia for the Division Bench observed after hearing Advocate Tashi Rabstan for the Union of India and Advocate TK Raina appearing for the respondent, that the single bench while entertaining the proceedings initiated by respondent, having considered the entire records as well as the submissions and contentions made by the petitioner/ respondent in this appeal, came to the finding that the respondent was entitled to pension of Naib-Subedar as he was given the said honorary rank of Naib-Subedar by the appellant vide order dated June 9, 1979.
It was further observed by the writ Court that the said order, giving the honorary rank of Naib-Subedar to the respondent, was not contested by the appellants.
The court further observed that basic fact is that the respondent retired in the year 1970 as Havildar. After nine years of his retirement in the year 1979 a communication was issued by the appellant showing the respondent as Naib-Subedar in the space against "Ex-Rank" while forwarding "Samar Seva Star" Medal to him in 1994, the Union of India appellant has come up with the fact that the communication dated June 9, 1979 showing the respondent as Naib-Subedar against "Ex-Rank" was issued inadvertently and error so made was rectified vide order dated March 26, 1996, to show that the respondent was not Naib-Subedar, but a Havildar.
Upon this, the court said that it is amazing to note that it took 17 years for the Union of India to come-up with such corrigendum. However, from the perusal of the communication dated June 9, 1979, it transpires that the said communication did not reveal that the respondent was ever given the rank of Naib-Subedar. Rather the expression Naib-Subedar was shown in the space meant for "Ex-Rank".
More so, on close scrutiny of the records, including the writ petition, DB did not find any order by which the appellant's pension was being reduced and / or to show the exact amount which has been deducted from his pension amount.
The court further observed that having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, DB is of the opinion that rectification having come-up at a belated stage, after a gap of more than one decade, interest of justice will be satisfied, if remaining of the excess amount drawn by the respondent and not recover from him till date, directed not be recovered and disposed of this appeal. ---JNF
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
