"Claim for Commuted Pension Denied: Patna High Court Upholds Procedural Requirements"

 


Introduction

This case involves a writ petition filed by Mr. Divya Prakash Pathak against the Dakshin Bihar Gramin Bank (DBGB) and its various officials. The petitioner, who is the son of the deceased employee, Mr. Chandra Bhushan Pathak, seeks a direction for the payment of the commuted value of pension that his late father allegedly applied for before his demise. The case was decided by the High Court of Judicature at Patna on August 25, 2022, by Honourable Mr. Justice Mohit Kumar Shah.

Background of the Case

Mr. Chandra Bhushan Pathak served the Dakshin Bihar Gramin Bank (earlier Bihar Gramin Bank) for a period of 32 years and superannuated on December 31, 2020, while holding the post of Officer Scale-1. Following his retirement, he applied for post-retirement benefits, including the commuted value of his pension. While his pension and other retiral dues were paid, the commuted value of the pension was not disbursed before his unfortunate death on July 19, 2021.

The petitioner argued that since his father applied for pension commutation, the respondent authorities were obligated to make the payment. However, the respondents contended that no formal application for pension commutation was made and that the process could not be completed due to several procedural defects and the untimely death of the petitioner’s father.

Arguments Presented

Petitioner’s Arguments:

1.     The petitioner claimed that his father had applied for the commutation of pension along with other post-retirement benefits.

2.     As the pension application process was completed, the petitioner argued that the commutation of pension should have also been processed.

Respondent’s Arguments:

  1. The respondents, represented by learned Senior Counsel, stated that while the pension application was made on September 10, 2020, no specific application for pension commutation was filed by the deceased before his death.
  2. The process of granting pension commutation is governed by the "Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank (Employees) Pensions Regulations, 2018." Under these regulations, an employee must deposit the employer’s share of the Employee Provident Fund (EPF) to become eligible for pension.
  3. The bank had granted a provisional pension based on humanitarian grounds, while awaiting the deposition of the employer’s share of EPF.
  4. The petitioner’s father deposited the employer’s share on July 15, 2021, but the application for pension commutation submitted on July 16, 2021, was incomplete, lacking essential details and signatures.
  5. The respondent’s contention was that by the time the defects in the application could be addressed, the petitioner’s father had already passed away on July 19, 2021.
  6. The bank maintained that since the pension itself was discontinued upon the death of the employee, there was no pension in existence to commute.

Court’s Analysis and Decision

The court carefully examined the documents and arguments presented by both parties. It was evident from the record that:

  1. The application for pension commutation was filed by the petitioner on behalf of his deceased father just three days before his death.
  2. The application was incomplete, lacking the employee’s signature on the photograph, as well as other essential details.
  3. The application was still under processing for correction when the unfortunate death of the employee occurred.
  4. As per the regulations, the pension is discontinued upon the death of the employee. Therefore, the question of commuting a non-existent pension does not arise.

The court concluded that the petitioner had not made out a valid case warranting the direction to the respondents to pay the commuted value of the pension. As a result, the writ petition was dismissed for lacking merit.

Conclusion

This judgment highlights the importance of complying with procedural requirements when applying for pension benefits. It also underscores the difficulties that can arise when procedural errors occur in the application process. The court's decision in this case demonstrates the principle that commutation of pension is not a right that survives the death of the pensioner when the application process remains incomplete. It also emphasizes the role of proper documentation and adherence to regulations in ensuring the timely processing of retirement benefits.

The case serves as a reminder to retirees and their families to ensure thorough and accurate completion of all necessary formalities to avoid similar complications.

Read the full judgement Below;

MTUjMTk4ODEjMjAyMSMxI04=-y1cgQFRhjyE=