SHANTI DEVI ALIAS SHANTI MISHRA versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [2020] 12 S.C.R. 279 · Decided: 05-11-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ASHOK BHUSHAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
279
SHANTI DEVI ALIAS SHANTI MISHRA
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 3630 of 2020)
NOVEMBER 05, 2020
 [ASHOK BHUSHAN, R. SUBHASH REDDY AND
M.R. SHAH, JJ.]
Constitution of India – Art. 226 – Code of Civil Procedure –
s. 20 – Coal Mines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions
Act, 1948 – Family Coal Mines  Pension Scheme, 1998 – Territorial
jurisdiction – The Government notified a Family Coal Mines Pension
Scheme, 1998 dated 05.03.1998 – Earlier, the late husband of the
appellant did not opt for the said pension scheme – However, later
the husband of appellant opted for the pension scheme by notification
dated 09.01.2002 – The late husband of the appellant claimed
payment for pension from Darbhanga, State of Bihar – A writ petition
was filed by the husband of the appellant in Patna High Court
where prayed for grant of refund of Rs.1,33,559/- which was
wrongly withheld/ illegally deducted from him – The said writ petition
was dismissed on 08.02.2013 on the ground of lack of territorial
jurisdiction – After dismissal of the said writ petition, the husband
of appellant filed writ petition in Jharkhand High Court for the
same relief – Thereafter, letters dated 07.10.2013 and 06.11.2013
were issued from the office of Regional Provident Fund
Commissioner to the husband of the appellant – The letter stated
that since husband of appellant initially had not opted for pension
scheme in pursuance of 1998 notification, he could not have opted
for pension in the year 2002 – It was further stated that pension
was erroneously settled by Regional Commissioner, hence, more than
Rs.08 lakhs was to be recovered from the husband of the appellant
– It was also communicated through same letters that it was decided
to stop payment of monthly pension w.e.f. November, 2013 –
Husband of appellant filed another writ petition in Patna High Court
where he challenged the letters dated 07.10.2013 and 06.11.2013
– The Single Judge of the High Court after noticing the earlier
order of the High Court dated 08.02.2013 and observing that after
dismissal of writ petition, the petitioner had filed another writ
[2020] 12 S.C.R. 279
279
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
280
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 12 S.C.R.
petition before the Jharkhand High court and the same was pending,
held that the order of stoppage of pension is part of retirement
benefit, and petitioner ought to have filed the writ petition before
the Jharkhand High Court – Hence, the writ petition challenging
letters was again dismissed on ground of lack of territorial
jurisdiction – The LPA filed against the order of the Single Judge
was also dismissed – On appeal, held: The Single Judge of the
High Court did not correctly consider the facts and pleadings in
the writ petitions filed – The earlier writ petition was filed for refund
of wrongly withheld/ illegally detained amount and the subsequent
writ petition challenging letters dated 07.10.2013 and 06.11.2013
was filed when payment of pension after 08 years was stopped and
husband of appellant was directed to return the amount of more
than Rs.08 Lakhs – The cause of action for filing a subsequent writ
petition was entirely different – The Single Judge of the High Court
committed error in dismissing the subsequent writ petition because
of dismissal of earlier writ petition on the ground of lack of territorial
jurisdiction – For a retiree, who is settled and receiving pension at
Darbhanga, it cannot be said that it was necessary for him to file
his petition in the Jharkhand High Court where his earlier writ
petition was pending – The part cause of action had arisen in the
territorial jurisdiction of Patna High Court as the husband of
appellant was continuously receiving pension for last 8 years in
Darbhanga – The stoppage of pension at the same place gave a
cause of action – Thus, the said writ petition is revived at the Patna
High Court.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The Single Judge of the High Court did not
correctly consider the facts and pleadings in Writ Petition
No.13955 of 2006 and Writ Petition No. 5999 of 2014. The earlier
writ petition filed by the petitioner in the year 2006 was where
petitioner had prayed for refund of wrongly withheld/illegally
detained amount of Rs.1,33,559/-. When the earlier writ petition
was filed, there was no issue of non-payment of pension or
stoppage of pension since the pension had been started w.e.f.
May, 2005. The subsequent Writ Petition No. 5999 of 2014 was
filed when payment of p

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.