Smt Ganga Goswami vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.

Facts

The petitioner, Smt Ganga Goswami, filed a writ petition seeking post-retirement benefits, including pension and commuted value of pension, with effect from June 1, 2006, along with interest. She also sought compensation for hardships and harassment due to non-payment, and the quashing of a supplementary trust deed dated August 9, 2011, and an order of the Commissioner of Income Tax dated February 6, 2013. The respondents included the Union of India and others. The respondent No. 3, represented by Senior Standing Counsel, submitted a speaking order dated May 13, 2024, issued by the Competent Authority. This order directed the Drawing and Disbursing Officer of CGST Commissionerate, Faridabad, to forward the petitioner's pension papers for processing family pension within two days.

Held

The Court noted that Respondent No. 3 had placed on record a letter dated July 3, 2024, enclosing a speaking order dated May 13, 2024. This order directed the Drawing and Disbursing Officer of CGST Commissionerate, Faridabad, to send the pension papers as prescribed in the Pension Rules to the Pay and Accounts Office for processing the family pension of the Petitioner within two days of the order. In light of this development, the Court found that the grievance ventilated in the petition had been redressed. The Court stated that no further order was required and expressed hope that the pension disbursing authority would make every endeavor to disburse the pension as expeditiously as possible. The issues regarding the quashing of the trust deed and the Income Tax Commissioner's order were implicitly addressed by the redressal of the primary grievance concerning pension payment.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to receive post-retirement benefits, including pension and commuted value of pension, with effect from June 1, 2006, along with 12% annual compounded interest, as per the Self-Contributory Superannuation Benefits (Pension) Scheme of 1995? 2. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to compensation for hardships and harassment caused by the delay in payment of post-retirement benefits? 3. Whether the supplementary trust deed dated August 9, 2011, and the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax dated February 6, 2013, are liable to be quashed? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner sought payment of her post-retirement benefits with accrued interest and compensation for the suffering caused by the delay. She also sought to invalidate certain documents that may have contributed to the delay or dispute. Respondents' Arguments: Respondent No. 3 placed on record a speaking order dated May 13, 2024, indicating that the Competent Authority had directed the forwarding of the petitioner's pension papers for processing family pension. The respondents did not explicitly argue against the petitioner's claims but presented an action taken to address the grievance.