102 Yrs Old Freedom Fighter To Get Pension Arrears After Karnataka High Court Intervenes

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna said “Ebbing mental prowess and physical incapacity due to age was one of the prime reasons why the certificate could not be submitted in time. This, in the peculiar facts of this case, by no stretch of imagination, can be construed to take away the right of the petitioner for grant of pension, particularly, in the teeth of the guidelines.”

The bench directed the respondent to pay arrears of pension which is quantified at 3,71,280 along with interest at 6% per annum from 24-12-2018 till date of payment. Further it imposed a cost of Rs 1 lakh to be paid by respondents jointly, to the petitioner H.Nagabhushana Rao, within two weeks.

On 01-11-2017 the pension of the petitioner was abruptly stopped. When enquired about the reason for such stoppage, it was indicated to the petitioner that he had not submitted his Life Certificate for the year 2017-2018 and later he submitted the Life Certificate on 24-12-2018.

Then the Government issued a sanction letter belatedly releasing pension for the period from 24-12-2018 to 05- 10-2020. However, the arrears of pension between 01-11-2017 to 24-12-2018 were not paid, which amounted to 3,71,280.

Thus the petitioner approached the court seeking directions to release of arrears of pension. The court vide its order 24-06-2020 directed the respondents to take appropriate action within two weeks. When nothing came about, the petitioner moved a contempt petition, pursuant to which, the Ministry issued a sanction letter dated 05-10-2020. However, pension for the period from 01-11-2017 to 24-12-2018 was not released on the specious plea that the petitioner had not submitted a Life Certificate.

Again the petitioner approached the court which by its order dated 10-06-2022 considering the purport of guidelines for grant of such pension allowed the petition in part and directed the 4th respondent therein, Government of India to take appropriate decision in terms of the Scheme for disbursement of pension after assessing entitlement of the petitioner.

Pursuant to the order passed by the Court and claiming to be considering the grievance of the petitioner, a communication was issued on 13-09- 2022 directing that the petitioner is not entitled to the arrears for the solitary reason that the petitioner did not submit a Life Certificate in November, 2017.

The Union government submitted that it is in no way responsible for deduction or non-payment of pension and non-submission of Life Certificate would automatically stall pension. Therefore, submission of Life Certificate to the Bank and such entry being made by the Bank is imperative. If at all someone is responsible, it is the Bank officials and not the Union of India, it was argued.

Counsel for the Bank argued that Life Certificate has to be submitted by the freedom fighter under the Scheme and that there is no duty of the Bank officials to go and collect the Life Certificate.

The court noted that the petitioner was a recipient of Swatantra Sainik Samman Gaurava Dhana (Pension), being a freedom fighter, from 1974 from the Government of India. Then referring to the policy Guidelines with regard to payment of pension under the Central Samman Pension Scheme, it said,

“The guidelines would direct that in case where the pensioner does not submit the Life Certificate, the Bank would stop the pension and leave the matter at rest. The guidelines would indicate that it was not enough and it is expected from the Bank that, apart from stopping pension, it should immediately visit the pensioner to find out why he or she did not submit the Life Certificate. The guidelines direct that this will help the Bank to timely update the data in case the pensioner has died and recover any excess payment.”

Following which it said “If the pensioner is too old to come to the Bank, it is the Bank officer who should visit his/her residence before obtaining the Life Certificate. Clause 2.4 mandates that stopping of pension is not enough but it is expected from the officers of the Bank that they immediately visit the pensioner to find out why he or she did not submit the Life Certificate.”

On going through the records the bench said “Though submission of Life Certificate is imperative in terms of the guidelines and duty is cast on every pensioner to submit a Life Certificate, certain duty is also cast upon the Bank officials as well.”

Further it said “The duty that is cast upon the Bank officials is that they should visit a person whose Life Certificate has not come about immediately to update their data with regard to restoration of pension or otherwise.”

Then it held “The duty of the Bank is given a go bye. Vehement objections are put up by the learned counsel appearing for the Bank in order to save the officers who have derelicted in their duty in not adhering to the guidelines.”

The bench regretted over the apathy displayed by the officers concerned towards the petitioner who was then 97 years old. “The petitioner would be entitled to all the arrears along with interest, as the Bank has failed to collect Life Certificate from the hands of the petitioner in terms of the guidelines. The Bank ought to have visited the petitioner and collected the Life Certificate and regulated pension,” court held.

However, it clarified that not in every case the Bank is obliged to do so. In cases where there are genuine problems of pensioners who are unable to visit up to the Bank, it is the duty of the Bank officers to visit those persons and take Life Certificate and update them on the system.

The court opined “Pensio is trite, not a bounty. In a broader significance, it is a measure of socio-economic justice, which inheres economic security, in the fall of life when physical and mental capabilities of a pensioner begins to ebb corresponding to the ageing process. The raison d’etre for grant of pension is the inability to provide for oneself due to such old age. This can be withheld, curtailed or taken away, only in accordance with law.”

Following which it allowed the petition.

Case Title: H.Nagabhushana Rao And The Under Secretary FFR Division & Others

Case No: WRIT PETITION No.405 OF 2023

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 72

Date of Order: 17-02-2023

Appearance: Advocate Veena J Kamath for petitioner.

DSGI Shanthi Bhushan for R1.

Advocate B.G.Nayana Tara FOR R2 TO R4.

AGA M.Vinod Kumar FOR R5