SC Restores Writ Petition on Pension Dispute, Orders Provisional Pension for Widow

The Supreme Court of India ruled in favor of Shanti Devi, restoring her writ petition that challenged the stoppage of pension payments to her late husband, B.N. Mishra. The Court set aside the Patna High Court’s order that dismissed the petition on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction. Additionally, the Supreme Court directed that Shanti Devi should receive provisional pension until a final decision is made in the writ petition.

Background of the Case

B.N. Mishra, the late husband of the appellant, retired as a Personnel Manager from Eastern Coal Fields Ltd., Moira Colliery, Bankola Area, West Bengal, on April 30, 2005. He had initially not opted for the Coal Mines Pension Scheme, 1998, but later exercised his option under the amended notification dated January 9, 2002. His pension was approved, and he began receiving payments from May 2005.

In October 2013, the Regional Commissioner of the Coal Mines Provident Fund, Asansol, issued a letter stating that Mishra’s pension had been wrongly approved and ordered him to refund Rs. 8,01,334, covering pension payments from May 2005 to September 2013. Another letter in November 2013 directed him to return Rs. 8,09,268, and his pension was stopped.

Following this, B.N. Mishra filed Writ Petition No. 5999 of 2014 before the Patna High Court, challenging the order to return the pension amount and seeking restoration of his pension. However, the Patna High Court dismissed the petition, citing lack of territorial jurisdiction.

Arguments by the Petitioner (Shanti Devi)

Shanti Devi, who substituted her late husband as the petitioner, argued:

• The Patna High Court had territorial jurisdiction as the pension was credited into her husband’s bank account in Darbhanga, Bihar.
• The High Court had erroneously linked the 2014 petition to an earlier case (Writ Petition No. 13955 of 2006) that had a different cause of action.
• The stoppage of pension and demand for refund had severely affected her livelihood, and the matter required urgent judicial intervention.

Arguments by the Respondents

The Union of India and the Coal Mines Provident Fund Organization countered:

• B.N. Mishra worked in West Bengal, and his pension dispute was handled by authorities in Jharkhand and West Bengal, making those states the appropriate forums for legal action.
• Since Mishra had earlier approached the Jharkhand High Court in a related matter, the petition should have been filed there.
• The demand for a refund was justified as Mishra was not eligible for the pension under the scheme’s original terms.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Shanti Devi, making the following key observations:

1. Cause of Action Arose in Bihar

The Court emphasized that territorial jurisdiction depends on where the cause of action arose. It ruled:

“The pension of the deceased petitioner was credited to his bank account in Darbhanga for eight years. The stoppage of pension directly affected him at his native place, making Patna High Court the appropriate forum.”

2. Distinction Between Earlier and Present Cases

The Court noted that the earlier writ petition (13955 of 2006) was filed to seek a refund of deductions, whereas the 2014 petition (5999 of 2014) challenged the stoppage of pension. It ruled:

“The two cases had different causes of action. The dismissal of the earlier case on jurisdictional grounds does not preclude the filing of a fresh case based on new developments.”

3. Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens Not Applicable

The Court rejected the argument that the case should have been filed in Jharkhand, ruling:

“For a retired employee, the convenience of prosecuting a case where he resides and receives pension cannot be overlooked. The principle of forum non conveniens does not apply here.”

4. Stoppage of Pension Causes Severe Hardship

The Court acknowledged the severe impact of pension stoppage on the widow of a retired employee and directed interim relief:

“Considering the financial distress of the petitioner, respondents are directed to pay provisional pension to the appellant from December 2020, subject to the final decision in the writ petition.”

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court ruled:

• The Patna High Court’s decision dismissing the writ petition on jurisdictional grounds was incorrect.
• Writ Petition No. 5999 of 2014 was restored for fresh adjudication by the Patna High Court.
• Provisional pension payments were to be made to Shanti Devi from December 2020 until a final decision was reached.

Conclusion

This ruling is significant for pensioners, reinforcing that courts must consider the practical realities of retired employees while determining territorial jurisdiction. By ensuring provisional pension payments, the Supreme Court protected the widow from financial hardship and upheld the principle that jurisdiction should align with where the impact of a legal action is most felt. The decision also reaffirms that cause of action must be carefully examined in cases involving pension disputes.

Petitioner Name: Shanti Devi alias Shanti Mishra.
Respondent Name: Union of India & Others.
Judgment By: Justice Ashok Bhushan, Justice R. Subhash Reddy, Justice M.R. Shah.
Place Of Incident: Darbhanga, Bihar, India.
Judgment Date: 05-11-2020.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Shanti Devi alias Sh vs Union of India & Oth Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 05-11-2020.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Pension and Gratuity
See all petitions in Public Sector Employees
See all petitions in Employment Disputes
See all petitions in Judgment by Ashok Bhushan
See all petitions in Judgment by R. Subhash Reddy
See all petitions in Judgment by Mukeshkumar Rasikbhai Shah
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Remanded
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments November 2020
See all petitions in 2020 judgments

See all posts in Service Matters Category
See all allowed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Service Matters Category