Karnataka High Court
B K Sundara Rajan vs State Of Karnataka on 10 October, 2023
Author: N S Sanjay Gowda
Bench: N S Sanjay Gowda
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:36897
WP No. 27061 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA
WRIT PETITION NO. 27061 OF 2018 (S-R)
BETWEEN:
1. B K SUNDARA RAJAN
S/O LATE SWAMY
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,
SENIOR CITIZEN,
R/AT 79, 7TH CROSS,
GOVINDARAJANAGAR
BANGALORE-560 079.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. THIRTHA PRASAD.C.G., ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER
ALONG WITH SRI. SUNDARA RAJAN.B.K., PETITIONER-
PARTY IN PERSON)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
GOVT REP BY DEPUTY DIRECTOR
Digitally OF PENSION PAYMENT TREASSURY OFFICER,
signed by
PANKAJA S (MISS MALVIKA) NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
Location: BANGALORE-560 001
HIGH
COURT OF ...RESPONDENT
KARNATAKA (BY SRI. HARISHA.A.S., AGA FOR RESPONDENT)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO-DIRECT THE
RESPONDENT TO PAY THE ARREARS OF PETITIONER'S
PENSION WITH 12% INTEREST PER ANNUM FROM MARCH
2007 TILL 17.12.2015 AND TILL PAYMENT OF ARREARS OF
PENSION.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:36897
WP No. 27061 of 2018
ORDER
1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking a direction to be issued to the respondents to pay his pension which had not been paid from March-2007 to 17.12.2015.
2. According to the Statement of Objections filed by the State, the petitioner's wife Smt.S.Vijaya was working as a Government School Teacher and had passed away on 01.03.1989, as a consequence of which, the petitioner, being the husband and the only surviving legal heir, became entitled for the grant of family pension.
Accordingly, he was paid the family pension from 02.03.1989 to his Savings Account in the Bank of India.
3. The objections also states that from 30.03.2007 till 17.11.2015, the State had withheld the payment of family pension on the ground that it had received a letter from the Bank which was crediting the pension to the petitioner's account, stating that the petitioner had re-
-3-NC: 2023:KHC:36897 WP No. 27061 of 2018 married after the death of his first wife/the pensioner--
Smt.Vijaya and by virtue of the provisions of the Karnataka Treasure Code, he became ineligible for drawing the family pension.
4. The objections filed also encloses a copy of the letter addressed by the Bank and also the Borrower's/Guarantor's profile of one Smt.G.Bhagya, who was a guarantor to the loan availed by the petitioner, in which, the name of the husband of Smt.G.Bhagya is mentioned as Dr.B.K.Sundara Rajan i.e., the petitioner.
5. It is admitted that apart from this particular document, in which Smt.G.Bhagya was supposed to have stated that the petitioner was her husband, there is no other document indicating that the petitioner had married the said Smt.G.Bhagya. Even in the objections that are filed, it is stated as follows:
"2. It is submitted that the copy of the latter refer to above issued by the Bank of India to this Respondent. This reference to -4- NC: 2023:KHC:36897 WP No. 27061 of 2018 the letter dated 09.05.2007 wherein the Bank has suspected the re-marriage of the Petitioner and ineligibility of the Petitioner to draw the pension. Along with the said letter the Bank also forwarded the Borrowers/Guarantor's Profile wherein on G.Bhagya he shown as the borrower and her husband name shown as B.K.Sundra Rajan, which makes clear the Petitioner is re-married after the death of his first wife. Copy of the letter issued by the Bank to this Respondent along with the borrower profile is herewith produced and marked as ANNEXURE-R3."
(emphasis supplied)
6. Thus, it is clear that the pension of the petitioner was withheld only on the basis of suspicion based on the Bank's letter and the application of Smt.G.Bhagya.
7. The learned Additional Government Advocate submits that the Government had also addressed a Communication to the Office of the Deputy Commissioner asking for a report in this regard and till date, the report has not been received.
-5-NC: 2023:KHC:36897 WP No. 27061 of 2018
8. It, therefore, follows that apart form the mere suspicion that the Bank of India harbored against the petitioner, there is no material to indicate that the petitioner had married Smt.G.Bhagya. The filling up of application by Smt.G.Bhagya, while standing as a guarantor to the loan availed by the petitioner, cannot, by itself, lead to an inference that the petitioner had married Smt.G.Bhagya.
9. It is also not clear, as per the application that is filed, as to whether the application was actually filled by Smt.G.Bhagya, since the signature and the contents of the application do not have the same hand-writing.
10. It may also be pertinent to state here that the petitioner had, in fact, instituted a suit in Small Cause case No.957 of 2013 against the Bank of India and the officials of the Treasure Department, seeking recovery of sums from the Bank of India on the ground that they had not paid him the appropriate sums as pension.
-6-NC: 2023:KHC:36897 WP No. 27061 of 2018
11. The said suit had been decreed and the Bank had been directed to pay the sum of Rs.6,794/-, and in the course of this order, the Civil Court considered this contention of the petitioner's marriage and has stated as follows:
"13. Ex.P-3 to 6 and 8 are the copies of letters written by the plaintiff to Deputy director of Treasury, Zonal Manager of BOI, Chief Manager of BOI, Zonal Manager of BOI dated 29-9-09, 16- 4-2009, 26-3-2009 respectively, to the defendant no.3 and Deputy Director of treasury dated 21-3-2011. These correspondences make it clear that the plaintiff was not paid family pension from 30-3-2007. Ex.P-9 is the reply issued by the Deputy Director of Treasury. Ex.D-14 is the copy of letter dated 2-4-2007 and portion of it reads as under:
"A widow/widower recipient of family pension should promptly report to the pension disbursing authority in the event of their remarriage. The certificate of non-remarriage in the form prescribed in annexure Defendant(III) of PSB Rules is required to be furnished by the -7- NC: 2023:KHC:36897 WP No. 27061 of 2018 recipient in November every year for the drawl pension.
Kindly forward the copies of all the certificates of non- remarriage obtained from the pensioner for the period he has been drawing family pension from your branch. The credit of family pension may be held up until the status of remarriage to Smt.Bhagya is confirmed.
In the event of the pensioner refusing his remarriage the same may be intimated to the Treasury to enable us to refer the confirmation of remarriage status, through Revenue authorities."
The above letter makes it clear that the defendant no.1 has intimated the Treasury regarding remarriage of the plaintiff on the basis of information given in loan application and in turn, the Treasury has written a letter to stop the payment of pension amount temporarily. There is no evidence as to passing of final order by the Treasury in respect of right of the plaintiff to get family pension. Ex.D-1 to 3, 5 and 8 disclose that the plaintiff borrowed Rs.50,000/- from the defendant no.1 for purchase of surgical equipments, that one Smt.G.Bhagya -8- NC: 2023:KHC:36897 WP No. 27061 of 2018 stood as guarantor for the said loan and in guarantor profile, she has described herself as wife of the plaintiff, that the plaintiff has authorised the defendant no.1 to debit loan installments to his S.B.A/cNo.11865 and accordingly, loan installments were debited to the S.B.A/c from time to time. Ex.D-4 is copy of letter of the plaintiff seeking permission to withdraw Rs.1,000/- from the account. The shara dated 12-7-2002 reveals the grant of such permission and withdrawal of amount upto December 2002. Ex.P-10 is rate of pension payable to the plaintiff from 1-7-2006 to 28-2-2011. The said document confirms that no order is passed stopping the payment of pension to the plaintiff. PW-1 has stated that the Treasury has not paid him pension from 30-3-2007 to 30-9-2009. The total amount of pension for the said period as per the rate of pension shown in Ex.P-10 comes to Rs.86,007/-. There is no evidence that the Treasury has passed any order after letter dated 2-4-2007 at Ex.D-14. Except loan documents at Ex.D- 1 to 3 and 8, there is nothing on record to believe that the plaintiff has married -9- NC: 2023:KHC:36897 WP No. 27061 of 2018 Smt.G.Bhagya. Secondly, the defendant no.2 has not produced any evidence to believe that the plaintiff was given an opportunity of being heard before stopping the payment of pension amount. There is no evidence that the Treasury has paid pension amount for the period from 30-03-2007 to 30-09-2009 to the plaintiff or that the pension payment order was lawfully cancelled or modified by the Treasury. Therefore, I hold that the Treasury was liable to pay Rs.86,007/- to the plaintiff as on the date of the suit. But, it is to be noted that the plaintiff has not made the State and Treasury as parties to the suit. On the contrary, he sued the Deputy Directors of the Treasury in their individual capacity. The defendant no.2 and 3 are not liable to pay the pension amount to the plaintiff in their individual capacity. The plaintiff has not produced any evidence that the defendant no.2 and 3 have acted malafidely in stopping of payment of pension. It shall be presumed that the defendant no.2 and 3 being public servants have acted bonafidely and discharged their duty. The amount is
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC:36897 WP No. 27061 of 2018 payable by the Treasury. The plaintiff ought to have filed suit against the State and Treasury through Deputy Director. The amount of Rs.86,007/- was payable by the Treasury and not by the defendant no.2 and 3."
(emphasis supplied)
12. It is, therefore, clear from the above that the Civil Court has also observed that except the loan documents, there was nothing on record to believe that the petitioner had married Smt.G.Bhagya.
13. In my view, since there is no evidence indicating that the petitioner had, in fact, married said Smt.G.Bhagya, withholding of pension for the aforementioned period would be incorrect.
14. Consequently, a direction is issued to the respondents to pay the family pension which was withheld to the petitioner from March-2007 till December-2015, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
- 11 -
NC: 2023:KHC:36897 WP No. 27061 of 2018
15. The writ petition is accordingly allowed.
Sd/-
JUDGE RK ct:SN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8