Munni bai vs PENSIONS AND PENSIONERS WELFARE

Open Court
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ALLAHABAD BENCH
ALLAHABAD .

TH
Dated : This the 15 day of October 2026

Original Application No. 379/2026

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (J)

Munni Bai, aged about 78 years , wife of Late Mahabir, resident of
Village and Post Chhibaiya, District Prayagraj.
.....Applicant

By Adv : Shri Jagdish Singh Bundela
: Shri Akhilesh Kumar Tripathi

V E R S U S

1. Union of India through Secretary (Pension), Department of Pension
and Pensioners' Welfare, Lok Nayak Bhawan, Khan Market, New
Delhi–110003.
2. Divisional Railway Manager, South Eastern Railway, Kharagpur.
3. Assistant Divisional Finance Manager, South Eastern Railway,
Kharagpur.
4. The Manager, State Bank of India, Centralized Pension Processing
Centre, Sector-1, Jankipuram, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh.
…Respondents

By Adv: Shri M.K. Sharma

O R D E R

Shri Jagdish Singh Bundela, learned counsel for the applicant and
Shri M.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents are present and
heard.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant has filed the instant O.A. for
seeking following reliefs:-
ASHISH
1
KUMAR

(i) To seek a relief ad-interim mandamus to direct and command
the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to stop further recovery from the
pension of the applicant and to refund the excess recovery
already made from the commuted value of pension (CVP)
amounting to Rs. 92,058/-, along with interest at the rate of 12%
per annum from the date of recovery of the excess amount.
(ii) To issue a direction to the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to
recalculate and pay full pension from 01.09.2022 and grant
pension as per the 6th and 7th Pay Commissions, and to add
Dearness Allowance (D.A.) accordingly.
(iii) To grant any other relief to which the applicant is found
entitled to in law and equity.

3. The brief facts of the case as narrated in the OA are that the
applicant, a retired Railway employee aged about 78 years, has filed the
present Original Application seeking restoration of the commuted portion
of her pension with effect from 01.09.2022, upon completion of fifteen
years from the date of commutation. She alleges that the respondents have
continued to deduct the commuted portion from her pension and have
failed to revise her pensionary benefits in accordance with the 6th and 7th
Pay Commissions. She has, therefore, sought refund of the excess amount
recovered, along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum, and other
consequential benefits.
4. Despite ample opportunities having been given, counter has not
been filed. It is a matter in which recovery is said to have been continued
after commutation period, i.e., 15 years. In the circumstances, opportunity
to file the counter is hereby closed.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant herself
was employed in the respondents’ department and retired from service on
31.08.2007, whereupon her Pension Payment Order (PPO) was issued on
the same date. Referring to Annexure No. A-2, learned counsel contends
that the PPO specifically mentions 01.09.2007 as the date of
commencement of pension and 01.09.2022 as the date from which full
pension was to be restored upon completion of fifteen years of
commutation. However, despite the aforesaid stipulation, the respondents
have failed to restore the full pension and revise the PPO with effect from
ASHISH
2
KUMAR

01.09.2022. In view of the above, learned counsel prays that the Original
Application be allowed and the respondents be directed to revise the PPO,
restore the full pension with effect from 01.09.2022, and pay the
consequential arrears of pension from the said date till date.
7. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that, in view of the
stipulations contained in the Pension Payment Order (PPO), the applicant
is entitled to restoration of full pension with effect from 01.09.2022. He
further submits that, if the full pension has not yet been restored,
appropriate directions may be issued to the concerned authorities to
ensure its restoration. Referring to Annexure No. A-7, learned counsel
further contends that the department has already issued a communication
to the concerned bank informing it that the applicant’s pension has been
revised and that she is entitled to receive full pension with effect from
01.09.2022.
8. I have considered the rival submissions and gone through the entire
records.
9. It is evident from the Pension Payment Order (PPO) that the
applicant’s full pension was liable to be restored with effect from
01.09.2022. Learned counsel for the respondents has also referred to
Annexure No. A-7 and submitted that the department had already issued a
communication dated 22.03.2024 to the concerned bank regarding
revision of the applicant’s pension and restoration of full pension with
effect from the aforesaid date. In view of the above, the respondents are
directed to revise the PPO and ensure restoration of the applicant’s full
pension with effect from 01.09.2022. If the necessary order has already
been issued and the communication dated 22.03.2024 has already been
forwarded to the concerned bank, the respondents shall ensure its effective
implementation without any further delay. The revised PPO shall be
issued within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this
order, and a copy thereof shall be communicated to the applicant
forthwith.
10. The respondents are further directed to calculate and pay the
consequential arrears of pension admissible to the applicant with effect
ASHISH
3
KUMAR

from 01.09.2022, in the light of the communication dated 22.03.2024,
along with interest at the applicable GPF rate of interest, within the
aforesaid period of one month. Accordingly, the Original Application is
disposed of in the above terms. There shall be no order as to costs.

(Justice Om Prakash VII)
Member (J)

Ashish
ASHISH
4
KUMAR