Praveen Mahajan ORDER
Praveen Mahajan, Member (A)
1. Through the medium of this O.A., the applicant has sought the following reliefs:-
"(a) Quash and set-aside Order dated 30/11/2015 and Order dated 21/03/2016.
(b) Declare and hold that the undertaking/consent (for adjusting the amount of alleged recovery from the arrears of family pension) taken by respondents from the Applicant is void ab-initio and has no legal sanctity.
(c) Direct the respondents to release the arrears of family pension to the Applicant without any deductions as per the extant rules and law of land.
(d) Direct the respondents to pay interest @18% p.a. on the arrears of family pension (supra) to the Applicant till the payment is released to the Applicant.
(e) Direct the respondents to pay the family pension to the Applicant regularly and without any default.
(f) Award cost in favour of the Applicant and against the respondents."
2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant is a widow of late Sh. Jagbir Singh, who was appointed as Driver in Delhi Transport Corporation on 17.01.1983. The husband of the applicant was served charge sheet on 02.12.1985 and inflicted with penalty of removal from service w.e.f. 07.05.1986. These orders were challenged by the husband of the applicant in the Labour Court. Vide an award dated 16.03.1999, the Labour Court held that the enquiry conducted against the late husband of the applicant was in violation of principles of natural justice. Accordingly, the enquiry and the penalty orders were set aside, and the respondents were directed to reinstate the husband of the applicant with continuity of service and to pay full back wages to him. The respondents vide their order dated 24.06.2002 reinstated the husband of the applicant with continuity of service and paid him full back wages along with increments for the intervening period and other attendant benefits. The payments emanating from the above noted orders were given in 2003. Thereafter, he joined his duties at Maya Puri Depot, New Delhi, as directed by the respondents.
3. The husband of the applicant died in harness on 12.08.2013. The applicant in OA made a request to the respondents to release the family pension and other retiral benefits, which accrued on death of her husband (Sh. Jagbir Singh). She submitted the documents in November, 2013. When the respondents did not release the family pension to the applicant, she obtained the information under RTI Act, which showed that as per the respondents, an excess payment of Rs. 2,09,389/- was paid to late Sh. Jagbir Singh. The notings received under the RTI showed that the respondents intended to recover the excess amount from the arrears of family pension. It was also mentioned that the employer share of Rs. 76,310/- along with interest is payable to Pension Cell and the said amount is also recoverable in the same manner. Copies of internal noting sheets dated 18.12.2014 and 22.12.2014 are available at Annexure A-7.
4. The applicant refuted the averments made by the respondents stating that the respondents have no legal authority to withhold her family pension. The applicant states that she was called by the respondents in their office, and told that her thumb impressions are required on some documents which would enable them to release the family pension to the applicant along with arrears. She avers that the contents of the documents were not disclosed to her nor a copy of the said documents given to her. The respondents also took the signatures of her minor son on the above noted documents (who being minor could not have entered into any contract).
5. On 30.11.2015, the applicant received the impugned order wherein it was recorded that she had agreed to adjust a sum of Rs. 2,09,389/- with extra interest from the arrears of the family pension due to her. It is further averred that the applicant, who is an illiterate lady was given to understand that her thumb impression is/was necessary on the above noted agreement/undertaking for releasing the family pension and other retiral benefits to her. Without understanding the consequences, she had put her thumb impression on the letter dated 25.02.2015, which she could ........