Recovery of over-payment to a pensioner
Guest
(Querist) 12 May 2014
This query is : Resolved
31. Recovery/Refund of overpayment of pension to the Government Account.
(Ref. DGBA. GAD. No.H-10450/45.03.001/2008-09 dated June 1, 2009 and DGBA. GAD. No. H-2434/ 45.05.031/ 2009-10 dated September 15, 2009)
Government of India have advised us that the over payments of pension made by the banks are not credited back to Government account by the banks in lump sum but are remitted in installments as and when recovered from the pensioner. As this causes loss to the Government, all agency banks have been advised that whenever any excess / overpayment is detected the entire amount thereof should be credited to the Government account in lump sum immediately. We have reiterated instructions issued vide our circular dated April 18, 1991 and June 1, 2009 for recovery of excess payments and lump sum refund of excess/ overpayments respectively.
Would you please explain "As this causes loss to the Government, all agency banks have been advised that whenever any excess / over payment is detected the entire amount thereof should be credited to the Government account in lump sum immediately"
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 12 May 2014
The words under inverted commas do reflect that the over-payment is the loss to the Govt. exchequer hence it should be recovered in lump-sum and should be got deposited immediately.
Sankaranarayanan
(Expert) 12 May 2014
I do agree with sri rajkumar ji. It should be recovered lumpsuim
Guest
(Querist) 13 May 2014
"all agency banks have been advised that whenever any excess / overpayment is detected the entire amount thereof should be credited to the Government account in lump sum immediately"..I find it nowhere the word or words to the effect "to be recovered in lump sum".
Pl read the link ( under files)
http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/share_files/Circular-No-141-of-2009-8793.asp
P. Venu
(Expert) 13 May 2014
Obviously, the issue relates to over-payments because of the lapse on the part of the banks. It is only rational that the Banks should accept their responsibility and make good the loss caused to the Government.
However, the Banks can effect the recovery from the pensioners without causing undue hardship to them.
Guest
(Querist) 13 May 2014
Who is the competent auth to decide whether twice payment/excess payments were made in 2010 but now detected in Aug 2013 for a defence pensioner?
Guest
(Querist) 13 May 2014
@Sudhir Kumar..pl download the link
http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/share_files/Appeal-against-order-of-Banking-Ombudsman-8777.asp
Guest
(Expert) 13 May 2014
Query being repeated with several different subject lines/titles. Double payments of several lakhs should not be expected to be waived off.
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 14 May 2014
if the overpayment is in lakhs and the pesioner is ex-Army officer who is selected after four days of rigorous residential interview . In such case he should not be allowed to plead ignorance and there can be a criminal case against him and bank officials.
Guest
(Querist) 14 May 2014
Some are definitely on the side of the Indian Banks..All are welcome.
Guest
(Querist) 14 May 2014
http://pcdapension.nic.in/6cpc/Circular-141.pdf
Pl read the link ..applicable to recovery from defence pensioner
Guest
(Querist) 14 May 2014
http://pcdapension.nic.in/dpti/Dppi.pdf
Chapter V para 101-103 ( Defence PPI 2013,especially over payment detected by PDA after 12 months).
Guest
(Querist) 16 May 2014
Just for the info of the experts who are not able to download & view either the Circular No 141 of 2009 or the Defence Pension Pay Instructions 2013 :
According to the para 103 ch V of Def PPI 2013 ..if the over payment is detected by the PDA Bank after 12 months it has no other option but to inform the PCDA and wait for their disposal action/instructions. And if it is detected within 12 months it has to act as per provision of Circular No 141. Options under Circular No 141 are :
a) To recover one third of the monthly pension without the consent of the pensioner and approval of the PCDA.
B) An amount as decided mutually by the PDA bank with consent from the pensioner.
c) Lump sum against the Arrears due with specific order from the govt of India.
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 16 May 2014
so if you know the provision why you are taking test of the experts?
Guest
(Querist) 16 May 2014
Frankly speaking I was not aware. It's kind courtesy internet.I am sure it will help you as well. About taking test of the experts..Firstly I always believed in taking second opinion..Secondly I am a great admirer of Sri Sri RamaKrishna Paramhans..who said one need to even test Guru (Experts) before accepting him".Experts (Gurus should not )feel hurt either.)
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 17 May 2014
what Sri Sri RamaKrishna Paramhans said about insulting the Gurus.
Guest
(Querist) 17 May 2014
First pass the tests. Some are fit for Modi's PMO..yes BOSS.
Guest
(Querist) 17 May 2014
There is a query..Discuss about it .
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 18 May 2014
"There is a query..Discuss about it . "
why?
why not to withhold views?
Guest
(Querist) 19 May 2014
@PS Dhingra who is asking whom to waive off? I request you to download Defence Pension Pay Instructions 2013 (I am not able to upload it in the Files section) & Circular No 141 ( I have posted in the Files Section)and then offer your comments please.
Guest
(Expert) 19 May 2014
Waived of by the CDAP or the concerned bank. Naturally, you cannot be competent to waive recovery of over payment to you.
About downloading of the documents, I have no interest in downloading the stated documents. So, when not going to download, question of offering my comments do not arise.
Mind it, if you have received double credit worth about Rs. 15 lakhs (as you already stated in one of your earlier query with link at: http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/experts/Excess-payment-by-bank-420681.asp) the erring officials of the CDAP or the bank would not like to lose their jobs by allowing you the benefits of several lakhs of rupees,as they would not be able to make good the loss to the department or the bank from their own pocket.
Also, your case is not of business law, as you have misclassified under the Head, "Business Law."
The only thing required of you is to clarify the following two points:
(1) Whether you have not received double payment of your retirement benefits on account of mistake by the CDAP or the Bank? and
(2) If 15 Lakhs are to be recovered in easy installments out of your pension, what amount of installment you propose to be recovered from your pension and in how many years do you think the bank would be able to recover the total amount from you?
Guest
(Querist) 19 May 2014
@PS Dhingra..members of this professional site expect a little more careful assessment of my case from one of the Experts..it is easy to be beating around the bush.
Guest
(Expert) 19 May 2014
Mr. Haridas,
I usually try not to attend your queries, as you always try to sidetrack from the main issue by several controversial posts. The term beat around the bush seems to fit more appropriately on you when you don't clarify the issues but in a bid to get your desired answer from experts by raising controversial and extraneous issues in addition to your original query.
I prefer to reply to the point of issues raised by the querist with my rational thinking without any bias or prejudice, but only when the specific points are made clear by the querist. What is your expectation is not my problem, as I am not bound to pass any given test by you and to fit myself according to your own wishes by making replies of your own taste, which you normally desire from the community members.
Here also, by making unwarranted remarks in response to my reply you have tried to evade clarification on two points raised by me.
I would like to pose a pertinent question, do you think that the amount of overpayment is very small one to be spread over for recovery in easy installments when the bank becomes liable to pay from other public funds to the defence department for and on behalf of you?
A further question arises, why the investors and stake holders of the bank should suffer by making you enjoy with huge sum of Rs. 15 Lakhs out of their funds for years together. I am sure even if the bank spreads over the recovery amount to 20-30 years, you would agains raise a controversy of charging of interest on such a huge amount, if you as a retired person you remain alive by end of hugely extended recovery period.
There are several such questions, which neither you would prefer to be raised in public, nor you would like to reply on them. Rationally thinking, the bank cannot be expected to wait for 20-30 years to recover the whole amount of overpayment to the tune of Rs. 15 lakhs, while you already seem to have taken full advantage of such a huge sum. if not taken any advantage the you have not given the true picture of the case.
Now please don't expect me to waste any more of my valuable time on this controversial issue, if you address any more post to me.
Guest
(Querist) 20 May 2014
For your info..pension fund disbursed through Pension Disbursing Authority (PDA banks PSU/Private designated by PCDA for Def pensioners)is not investors money..that's public money.I still request you refer to Circular No 141 (already available in Files section) & then google defence pension pay instruction 2013 para 103. I do not know why some people get sentimentally attached to the bankers and show little sympathy to the def pensioners.
Guest
(Expert) 20 May 2014
When bank pays double the money against single liability of your department, whose money worth 15 lakhs the bank has paid youm, if not that money belongs to depositorsm investors and shareholders?
Also, how as an ex pretty senior defence personel how morally you are entitled to withhold the excess paid money to you when you are reaping profit by earning interest on that unearned money and had been clamouring about lien of bank on your FD after noticing double payment?
You can't attract unjustified sympathy on your sentimental statement, "I do not know why some people get sentimentally attached to the bankers and show little sympathy to the def pensioners," as against the nature of case. The question arises, in what way you want sympathy for your unjustified act of not returning the overpaid amount to you. You cannot equate other defence pensioners with yourself on the basis of this very instance. HAD YOU A GENUINE PROBLEM AND BEEN JUSTIFIED IN THE PRESENT CASE, I WOULD HAVE THE FIRST PERSON TO OFFER MY SUPPORT TO YOU TO HELP FIGHT YOUR CASE, WHAT TO SAY OF SYMPATHY ONLY. Now by your acting in merely self interest manner, I can guess, you seem to have become a great cause of harassment and mental torture of the employees of the pension wing of your department as well as the bank officials. Ny sympathy is all with expectedly the really harassed persons on account of your undue resistence to refund the overpaid amount of money.
A simple question arises, if you are so honest and moral bearing defence pensioner, why you avoid replying my fact finding questions?
In fact, as a responsible ex-serviceman of a very senior status, you could well have instructed your banker for premature withdrawl of your FD to adjust the amount of the FD against the overpaid money.
Guest
(Querist) 20 May 2014
Mr PS Dhingra honestly I am not trying to enlist your sympathy..What I want and the administrator of this site to emphasis to draw a line..pl read the exact Rules for recovery of Lump Sump even if there was an over payment by the PDA bank..it is given in para 103 of the Ch V of Defence Pension Pay 2013 (superseding 2005 version). It was neither written by my LATE POP nor by this PETTY Defence personnel. Pl go through that first or your expertise is at stake.
Guest
(Expert) 20 May 2014
Mr. Haridas Mandal,
In fact, in any of your queries, you create contoversy yourself, besides exposing yourself to a large extent.
The question arises, if you were not trying to enlist my sympathy in response to my reply, where was the need for you to write, "I do not know why some people get sentimentally attached to the bankers and show little sympathy to the def pensioners"?
About Rules/instructions about recovery, I know very well about the provisions, but I also know that there are exceptions also depending upon the gravity of situations.
So can you please clarify, why you have been trying to ignore the exception provided in the last sentence of the stated circular?
Can you also clarify from where the bank would credit the entire amount in lump sum in the the Government account (if not from public money), as provided in the circular when the bank would not be able to recover the overpaid amount even within the next 20-30 years?
Guest
(Querist) 20 May 2014
cmd@bankofindia.co.in
rkpuram.hyderabad@bankofindia.co.in
zo.hyderabad@bankofindia.co.in
headoffice.csd@bankofindia.co.in
CSD.Hyderabad@bankofindia.co.in
bohyderabad@rbi.org.in
Dear Sri Dhingra
Above are the email add of the who is who of that bank ..they have not told me where did they get that excess money..not even to the PCDA . I hope they give it to you to satisfy your scholarly expectations..
Guest
(Expert) 20 May 2014
Sorry dear, Neither I am your paid consultant, nor I should be expected to become an enquiry centre for you to make correspondence with various authorities for and on behalf of you and at last to get ready also to be rebuked by you, as you seem to be a totally unsatisfiable person by nature.
Guest
(Querist) 21 May 2014
That's sound like that of an Expert..not beating around the bush.
Guest
(Expert) 21 May 2014
Thanks for your appreciation.
Guest
(Querist) 22 May 2014
That's the extract of Para 103 Ch V Def Pension Pay Instructions 2005 now superseded by 2013 edition..para 103 is unchanged.( Edition 2013 was issued in Nov 2013..The bank marked my FDRs Lien in Sep 2013..forced closed in Oct 2013 ..hence it was covered under Def PPI 2005)
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Recovery of over payments of pensions:
103.1 “Overpayments of pensions detected within 12 months of the date of the first erroneous charge can be recovered by Pension Disbursing Authorities
without reference to the Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (Pensions),in the usual manner at the rate of one third of the net pension plus full
dearness relief payable each month, unless the pensioner concerned gives his / her consent to pay suomoto a higher instalment amount.
103.2 Overpayments of pensions not detected within 12 months of the date of the first erroneous charge should not be recovered from the pensioner’s dues
without the orders of the Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (Pensions). If there are any arrears due to the pensioner, the payment of the same may be withheld pending decision for the overpayment made. As soon as an overpayment comes to the notice of the Pension Disbursing Authority he should report the full details of the case to the Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (Pensions) who will decide the case himself, if it lies within his financial powers or he will obtain the orders of the competent authority or the Government of India as the case may be. To avoid hardship to the pensioner, payment for the current period, however, should be continued to
the pensioner at the correct rate admissible. On the decision of the case by the competent authority, the orders passed will be communicated to the
Pension Disbursing Authority by the Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (Pensions).
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Despite such clear unambiguous instructions why the managers of the PDA Banks dare to do such such thing..because LAW IS AN ASS. And none of the managers will pay from his/her pocket even if they are held guilty..and Judiciary with LOBIS dead will ensure that the Defence Pensioner is dead before the final order in favour of the Bank is given..for some consideration..
Guest
(Querist) 22 May 2014
You are entitled to do as you like..that's why it is called Social Site and not the OFFICE SIGN Board.
Guest
(Querist) 19 June 2014
Moganbo Khus Hua..One Mr Aggarwal..who claims to be some VICE PRESIDENT IN RBI..I doubt.
BCSBI.No. 907 /11.02.001/2013-14 June 18, 2014
Shri Haridas Mandal
Dear Sir
Grievance Redressal
Please refer to your e-mail dated May 19, 2014 on the captioned subject.
2. We advise that the “Banker’s General Lien” is a legal provision in the law of the land and BCSBI does not have any jurisdiction in the matter. However, if you feel that it is wrongly applied in your case, you may lodge a complaint with your bank. If no reply is received from the bank within 30 days of lodging the complaint or if you are not satisfied with the reply received from the bank, you may approach the Banking Ombudsman (BO) appointed by Reserve Bank of India.
Yours faithfully
Sd/-
(P.K. Agrawal)
Senior Vice President
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 21 June 2014
Your query thus seems fulfilled by the reply of Aggarwal.
Guest
(Querist) 22 June 2014
What BCSBI has said if true there will be no NPA with any PSU banks as BANKER'S LIEN will authorize them to force closed FDRs in any form , in any bank for any person incl the likes of AMBANIES ADANIS etc etc who have become big & bigger by taking loan from banks and did not pay. BCSBI while it stated it is beyond their domain but it's funny it commented on the banker's lien whereas in their RULES they have no mention about it. Secondly here BOI is a simple PDA (Pension Disbursement Auth) and hence bound by Def PPI 2005/2013. Now that I have a copy of that PPI it would not be easy for the bank to get away. A fight is round the corner.
Guest
(Querist) 22 June 2014
My Reply to Mister Aggarwal BCSBI..
Haridas Mandal
09:21 (3 minutes ago)
to cdachennai, Headoffice, General, cmd, HELP, CGMCSD, Banking, CRC, CRC, Help, RTI, cgda, E-mail, bcc: pehredar, bcc: Editor, bcc: editor, bcc: edp, bcc: Indian, bcc: edit, bcc: editor.india
Dear Sir
Further to your email and my reply thereof. I have gone through the Rules framed by your INDPENDENT BODY. There is a proverb in fashion..Lathi na tute Saanp bhi mare. Your attitude is akin to this popular proverb. In one hand you assume no reasonability on the other try to put a stamp of auth on the powers of the bank on Banker's Lien. If the power was so unlimited and used then there would have been no NPA with any of the PSU banks as promoters / guaranteers had their FDRs/Bank lockers etc in the same bank or in any other banks inside India or in any foreign lands. That calls for exact definition of banker's lien and its boundaries. There are court judgments on the issue exactly opposite to your uncalled for comments made in your reply. Secondly it is sad to see that your INDEPENDENT BODY has made no effort to include BANKER's Lien to safeguard the interest of the customers. It is sad to see while you have referred time and again on the perceived fraudulent action made by the customer to deny the rights you have made no efforts to include a para or two action to be taken if over payment is made by the bank to a customer especially a defence pensioner for which elaborate instructions are in vogue. It is not clear to me why you took the trouble to glorify the power of the banker to exercise Banker's Lien without bothering to refer exact provisions / instructions (Para 103 of Def PPI 2005/2013) issued by the GOVT OF INDIA..It is simply shameful on your part.
Secondly I wonder what could be the role of IBA then, It also claims to be a regulating body & independent one where all banks are members by default. Whereas as per your website it is not mandatory for each and every bank to be a member of your INDEPENDENT BODY.
Thirdly I wonder whether you are INDEPENDENT of RBI as well. Why then you are using domain add as rbi.org which gives the impression you are a sub-office of the RBI itself. But if you operating from the same premises & sharing resources of RBI it is not understood why you chose to comment on the power of the banks on Gen Lien despite having a copy of my appeal to the Dy Gov RBI against the order of BO Hyd which had all the information on the issue.
As you have tried to put a stamp of authority without going through my appeal it is now your duty to investigate whether the bank was bound by the banking codes &standards which includes all the relevant govt orders & instructions ( with special ref to Def PPI 2005/2013 & Circular No 141 of 2009).
Lastly I request your INDEPENDENT BODY to instruct all member banks to inform the extent of such draconian power under the garb of Banker's Lien while a potential customer approaches any of your member bank to open an account , a TDR acct and whether such power is extended to BANK's LOCKERS as well. Further till the time you are take concrete action on the issue I will leave no stone unturned to sensitize each and every Editors of the News Papers, News & Abuse Channels, NGOs, RTI Activists and such others with a copy of your mail asking them to coerce bank managers to exercise BANKER'S LIEN to appropriate each ands every FDRs/Bank Deposits as well as Bank Lockers held in the respective banks as well as other member banks (BCSBI) INSIDE INDIA or OUTSIDE INDIA (say in the Swiss Banks) of the LOAN DEFAULTERS,THEIR SPOUSES, THEIR GURANTEERS,the recommending politicians/ promoters/bureaucrats /banking officials forthwith to liquidate all NPAs. Time starts NOW.
Regards
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 22 June 2014
It shall be better now to directly deal with Mr. Aggarwal.
Guest
(Querist) 23 June 2014
One thing I have noticed none is commenting on para 103 of Defence PPI 2005/2013. Here we are dealing with a PDA (Pension Disbursement Auth) Bank which has been hired / contracted by PCDA MoD GOI to disburse PENSIONS to the Defence Pensioners. Those Lawyers who are on the pay roll (I mean Standing Counsels) of those PDA Banks must have first hand knowledge on the content of such contracts. I have searched the Internet for a copy of the contract with specific ref to Def PPI but yet to find the link. Here Bank of India is merely a POST OFFICE and tasked to transfer pension amount drawn from PCDA Albd (GOI MoD PCDA Acct based on the PPOs issued to them. OVERPAYMENT MADE IS ALSO FROM THE GOI PENSION FUND. Here comes the DEF PPI into play. PDA can't behave like a rogue..It has to comply para 103 of Def PPI 2005/2013And I will force Mr Aggarwal who has made such an unwarranted statement to get it withdrawn as fast as he could.
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 24 June 2014
It is true that PDA has no role except like a postman and whatever decision is made by PCDA(P) Allahabad is only complied by it in letter and spirit so better to knock the doors of PCDA(P), Allahabad.
Guest
(Querist) 26 June 2014
I have now some basic doubts. None of the experts has condemned the action of the bank for exercising Banker's Lien to force close my FDRs. None of the experts has explained range & depth of the provision of Banker's Gen Lien on FDRs. None of the experts has questioned the banker's willful act of force closing my FDRs and appropriating all of 19 Lacs to recover alleged over payment of Rs 15 Lacs 4 years ago. None of the experts here has questioned the integrity of the bank for not complying the instruction as at para 103 of Def PPI 2005/2013. I am sure many of the experts could be Standing counsel for more than one PDA banks and are well aware of the provisions of Def PPI. It is intriguing.@ Raj Kumar Makkad..No , on the contrary the PDA bank has acted on his own and did not inform PCDA of its action either to mark Lien or Force Close or appropriated my FDRs. PDA Bank has there fore is at fault.
For the standing counsels of the PDA Banks (if there is any)..Pl do take notice of the provision of Para 103 Def PPI 2013 and do consider the provisions while replying to similar question in respect to Def Pensioner supposedly over paid.
It bring into lime light what we exactly mean by bank has power of Banker's Gen Lien? Judgements available in the net is contrary to the uncalled for assertion of the Vice President BCSBI..But none of the experts here is commenting on this very core issue. Anyway thanks..I am ready to fight my case in the chief Judicial Magistrate's Court at Malkajgiri as a PARTY IN PERSON..a criminal case for PARKING BLACK MONEY, GENERATING INTEREST AND THEN forced closing FDRs.Wish me good luck
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 26 June 2014
Experts have tried their best to attend your query but due to your arrogant behaviour, none is interested to further co-operate so you are also required to introspect yourself.
Guest
(Querist) 26 June 2014
Such excuses are generally reserved for our Lordships who finds technical faults in FIRs etc while allowing a VIP accused of heinous crimes to go scot free..I value your comments and hence wish to leave it at that.
The issues at stake here:
a)Whether the PDA bank was bound by the instructions as at para 103 of Def PPI 2005/2013? If yes what should be the consequences?
b)Whether PDA bank had the right to exercise Banker's Lien to force close my FDRs worth 19 Lacs to recover alleged over payment of 15 Lacs.If no what are the consequences?
c)Whether it's a criminal case against the banking officials who parked black money in my pension acct? If yes under what section they should be charged.
d) Whether Banking Ombudsman, IBA, BCSBI is trying to put a stamp of authority on the powers of the banks on the issue of banker's Gen Lien? If yes will they extend it to all FDRs , bank lockers, bank notes etc etc held by bank defaulters piling up NPA as big as our economy?
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 26 June 2014
a). Yes and consequences are seen by the action they took in your case.
b). If the banker had every reason to believe that the over-payment is not being deliberately returned by pensioner then the action is justified.
c). No.
d). Action is justified but the same can definitely be extended to all such payments maintained in the sam bank by account-holder.
Guest
(Querist) 27 June 2014
My counter..
a) Alleged over payment was detected after 12 months hence PDA Bank was not entitled to act on its own at all leaving aside forced closing of my FDRs. It is the PCDA which is to take the decision with or without consultation with M0D GOI.
b)Again Para 103 of Def PPI was the only option for a PDA bank. Further I have uploaded files in this site containing the affidavit submitted by the Bank where in they have confirmed seeking approval to appropriate all my FDRs on the very day (01 Aug 2013)they write the letter to inform me for the first time after 4 years.
c)Is it not mandatory for the bank to disclose how a sum of Rs 15 Lacs credited to a savings acct which is not my Joint Pension acct and all PPOs issued by PCDA are acct payable endorsed on the PPOs itself?
d)All those are directly or indirectly funded /financed by the govt of India (BCSBI is being financed by the RBI for the past five years). Hence they are bound by govt of India Rules besides being guided by the Banking Ombudsman's Rules. Para 103 of Def PPI could not be discarded by those so called respected officials.
On the issue of Banker's Lien being extended to Ambanies , TATAs, Mittals, Goenkas, NRIs , PIOs,I am going to rake it up with or without the support of any DEVIL's Advocates, supposedly considered OFFICERS of the Court.
Guest
(Expert) 27 June 2014
Mr. Haridas,
If you are of firm conviction that the PDA Bank was not entitled to act after 12 months, why not sue the bank in a court of law, rather than stretching the discussion seemingly up to infinity only?
A question arises, would you be able to get your FDRs released by the bank by merely restricting yourself to overstretched discussions on this page of LCI, rather than taking some constructive action? I really wonder to find that a high ranking ex-defence prsonnel is fighting merely a war of words that too in himself and the community members, who are not even remotely concerned with his case!
Better sue the concerned bank, as per your your belief.
Guest
(Querist) 27 June 2014
Again character assassination rather than commenting on the query raised.
"If you are of firm conviction that the PDA Bank was not entitled to act after 12 months,". I once again request Sri Dhingra to read para 103 of Def PPI as he had read and commented on the provision of Banker's General Lien. I have complained to BO Hyd. Appealed against order of BO Hyd to Dy gov RBI and petitioned Deptt of Ex-Servicemen GOI to wake up PCDA.I have complained to the IBA as well as BCSBI. Don't you think those regulating auth should be given their chance to uphold the constitutionally est statutory auth.I am exhausting all the remedial forum and then go to the court which takes on an average 22.2 years to decide a case. My writ petition on domicile issue and a CAP quota for my daughter for MBBS filed on 16 Jul 2013 is still pending . It was admitted on 8 Aug 2013 and then ever taken up.
"I really wonder to find that a high ranking ex-defence prsonnel is fighting merely a war of words that too in himself and the community members, who are not even remotely concerned with his case!"...Not concerned with the case? I am still to digest such remarks..
Guest
(Expert) 27 June 2014
Your attitude is really quite strange. You seem to become happy, if someone endorses your views blindly, and feel character assassination if someone suggests you to take some legal recourse or you treat the views of others as, "Such excuses are generally reserved for our Lordships who find technical faults in FIRs etc while allowing a VIP accused of heinous crimes to go scot free".
By the way, what is the definition of character assassination in your terms?
Also, you may please like to make it clear, what actually you want from the community members here, to endorse your views blindly, to give personal opinion on your views, to suggest some legal action action, to fight legal case on your behalf, to give a verdict against the bank on behalf of the court, each of the experts should go to your bank and contact personally to request the bank officer to release your FDR? What help actually do you require from the members of this forum to make you happy?
Guest
(Querist) 28 June 2014
My wish list..
Experts to comment on PDA Bank's act on exercising Banker's Gen Lien on my FDRs to recover alleged over payment when clear & UN-ambiguous instructions in the form of para 103 of Def PPI for Def Pensioner existed.
To comment why BO Hyd did not hold a hearing against my complaint but uphold the action of the bank?
Why BCSBI made a passing remark of banker's power under Gen Lien but ignored the codes and standards for the PDA banks in the form of Para 103.
Guest
(Expert) 28 June 2014
What will you gain by the several comments of the experts on PDA bank's act on your several versions of the same question repeatedly, as put by you for the last about two years (2012), may probably be earlier also, where your earlier post with the subject line was noticed as, "Bank account hacked"?
If you compile all those comments you can compile a big volume of a book for no use of yours when you do not want to sue the bank in the court of law.
It seems as if you have the hobby of wasting time of the experts with the same query but with variety of versions each time.
You probably forget that in your PDA/FDR case you have to convince only the bank, not the experts. If the bank officials fail to understand your view point, you have to go to the court and get justice by convincing the court of law.
Guest
(Querist) 29 June 2014
Obviously some of the experts believe in mutual understanding and have less faith on the provision of law of the land.
Guest
(Expert) 29 June 2014
Mr. Haridas,
In context with your remarks, "Obviously some of the experts believe in mutual understanding and have less faith on the provision of law of the land," I hope, you would have heard a very common phrase, "Everything looks yellow to a juandiced eye".
However, a question arises, since when you have become a legal analytic when all your previous posts make the things very clear that in your views, only you are the right thinking person on this earch and everyone else is wrong and stupid? In every one of your post, anyone can find that almost all of your posts did not contain any genuine problem of yours, except the criticism of individuals, organisations, trading houses, your own department, and even the judiciary.
In fact, it is only you, who need to see the world by removing your own camouflaged vision.
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 29 June 2014
Mr. Mandal should be elevated to bench now but unfortunately the country and we are lucky as no constitutional authority would like to be guided by my suggestion.
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 30 June 2014
I do endorse the practical suggestion of Mr. Prabhakar.
Guest
(Querist) 30 June 2014
I do endorse the views expressed by the EXPERTS..and also demand that this site should have an WARNING when someone asks a question..That if you have not engaged an advocate with full payments or do not wish to engage any Advocate after receiving contradictory sometimes TANGENT EXPERT advises pl do not ask question as this is FRONT for luring potential clients and not people engaged in SOCIAL SERVICE in this Social Media.
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 30 June 2014
the IQ of top experts is too low when compared with Lt Col Haridas Mandal.
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 01 July 2014
I have no other option but to firmly stand with the wise and experienced opinion of Mr. Sudhir.
After all Mandal shall decide the terms to run the Nation.
Guest
(Querist) 02 July 2014
Paramhans Sri Sri (Sri Sri 420 in fashion now-a-days)" Jata Mat Tata Path "(More the Opinions more the Ways". But the LAW as we are made to believe that it is blind folded hence not influenced by the opinions but strictly by the evidence ( like say Justice Dharam Dass of A yodhya Babri masjid case..Ram Lala Birajaman gets one third land(Evidence??!!!phew).Here the Experts seems to contradict or simply say YES BOSS among themselves but have full & final Astha on their expertise collectively.That's life.
Guest
(Expert) 02 July 2014
Mr. Haridas,
By the way, what is the relevance of your quote, "Paramhans Sri Sri (Sri Sri 420 in fashion now-a-days)," with your present case. If you believe, "Jata Mat Tata Path" (More the Opinions more the Ways" what ways you could derive out of the opinions of the experts so far to avoid refund of double payment to you? When you try to side-track the main issue, you should not expect the opinions to serve your purpose.
About your pungent remarks, "YES BOSS" aimed at the community members, here also you are wrong, as we are not in the habit of saying "yes boss" on each of your vague ideas and perceptions just to make you happy by endorsing your rubbish ideas, misconceptions, assumptions and presumptions, on the issues, which you see only with your coloured vision every time. In fact, you see everyone to be your enemy No.1 with whom you deal in any manner, may be your own department, CDAP, your bank and its employees, CSD canteen staff, LPG distributor and other traders, packagibng industry, soldiers welfare board, court staff of the HC/SC and even judges, who deal with your case, and also the community members of LCI, whom you approach for their opinions with your problem. Can you please quote any example, whom you have spared in any of your posts so far?
In the present case, probably, you feel that justice would be done to you only if the bank allows you to easily swindle away the double payment of about Rs.15 lakhs at the cost of several of its employees to be fired having contributed in allowing double payment to you simply to be misappropriated by you. In this case also, you treat the over payment as "ALLEGED" over payment. Can you state, if you have anywhere stated what total amount you received as your retirement benefits and what actually you were entitled as per your own calaculations with reference to the qualifying service rendered by you?
If you feel that the calculation of your pension sanctioning authority or the bank was wrong, what actually was your own calculation for your entitlements that you should have mentioned instead of continuing with your vague posts?
In Government service, even a peon, a semi-literate and the lowest ranking official of the Government, is able to calculate his entitlements on retirement, cannot you, as a very high status ex-defence personnel?
You have stretched this thread with your vague ideas to a very exceptionally long extent but not giving any fact about your entitlements vis-a-vis the payments made to you. That clearly indicates that you come here with your vague and repeated queries, just to pass your idle time and getting fun out of the replies of the community members, when you very well know that withholding of overpayment on your part is not justified at all.
I wonder to know whether you are quite unable to realise or knowingly don't want to realise that you have been doing nothing, except exposing yourself to a very great extent with each of your own vague queries and subsequent vague posts on each response of the community members.
Guest
(Querist) 02 July 2014
@Dhingra I once request you to read para 103 of Def PPI 2013 on the issue of recovery even if there is an overpayment but detected 12 months afterwards by the PDA Bank. Again you are again trying character assassination rather being specific to the issue.
You know this BJP led NDA govt at the centre because of ONE issue "RAMPART CORRUPTION, NEPOTISM and BLACK MONEY" Many of the members were very politically PROACTIVE on these issues.
Guest
(Expert) 02 July 2014
Mr. Haridas,
I have already read the said para and do not need to repeat reading of para time and again as per your direction. Better file the case in the court of law, show this para to the judge of the case and request for waiver of recovery of Rs.15 lakhs in your favour to allow you the booty to enjoy your life with the money collected through taxes from the Indian public and disbursed to you as pensionary benefits. BEST OF LUCK.
Anyway, can you please make it clear, whether you retired on superannuation or else. I wonder, if by virtue of your attitude and temperament you could have proved yourself as an asset to the Indian Military Service.
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 02 July 2014
Like Mr Dhingra I am also curious
whether you retired on superannuation or else. I wonder, if by virtue of your attitude and temperament you could have proved yourself as an asset to the Indian Military Service.
Guest
(Querist) 03 July 2014
@Dhingra & Sudhir...You have taken LCI to new level..They must felicitate both of you. I personally recommend you both for suitable place in BCSBI or IBA.
Guest
(Expert) 03 July 2014
You have not replied any of my queries. Every time on my query, you try to evade my questions by your very vague type of replies.
Guest
(Querist) 03 July 2014
Question asked: To explain content of RBI letter on credit of overpaid pension in lumpsum by the PDA banks,
Answer recd: As this is loss to the exchequer it should RCOVERED in LUMP SUM.
yes boss: it shpuld be recovered in LUMP SUM.
My query : But no where it is talking of RECOVERY from the pensioner in LUMP SUM.
Answer recd: Where are the fahe case !!!!!!!!?????
Saner voice: Obviously the issue relates to over-payment because of the bank...bank should take the responsibility. .....can effect recovery from the pensioner without causing hardship to him..exactly what is written at para 103 of Def PPI. It was not known to me that point of time.
Answer recd: Query being repeated..double payment should not should not be expected to be waived of.
Another answer: If over payment is in lakhs ..pensioner ex-Army Oficer ...selected after four days of ri.gorous trg...he should not plead ignorance and there can be a criminal case against him...
My inputs: Circular 141 & para 103 of Def PPI uploaded.:
Answer: If you know the provision why you are taking test of Experts?
And then some literally took the discussion to a level not expected out of them. POINT is of MODE of Recovery from the pensioner while they are compelled to credit it in lump sum. It is logical as it was the bank's fault.
The other associated points which were high lighted
a ) Bank exercising bank's gen lien on my FDRs.. There are numerous comments in this site by the Experts , Yes Boss & Others that bank can not force closed FDRs to recover over payments. There are more contradictory court judgements on the issue as is the trade mark of our Judiciary.
b) Who restrains if PDA bank feign ignorance on the existence of Para 103 of Def PPI or circular No 141 or mis-interpret RBI instructions?
c) Can BO Hyd dispose it of under clause 13 (a) stating they found no deficiency in service and also debar appeal to Dy Gov RBI under clause 14 of BO Rules 2006?
d) Can BCSBI simply shrug of its responsibility but at the same time put a stamp of auth on their action to exercise banker's lien?
These issues are important. There are many members who may be standing councels for more than one PDA PSU Banks. It is but natural they may recuse themselves. But not agitate on the isues at stake but defame the queriest is not a good sign.
I wish admin tako notice of this and revise policy to confer YES BOSSES as Experts.
Guest
(Expert) 03 July 2014
So, ultimately, your latest reply is just like an admission of wrong payment of huge amount to you.
There is, however, no use of making pick & chose of just a few extracts out of bulk of from various experts replies.
When 5 days back I suggested you, "better sue the concerned bank, as per your your belief" and to convince the court of law, why you are after the community members to endorse your views, when even on their endorsing your views cannot benefit you even to the slightest extennt. More so when you consider them as following the policy of "YES BOSS" except treating you as their boss. Anyway,, at least, I can't say you as, "Yes Boss."
The instance of not going to the court, in itself renders enough proof that you are fully aware of the fact that you are totally wrong in your assumption about recovery of overpayment, particularly in your case, while you seem to have dishonestly tried to earn undue profit by investing the huge amount disbursed to you by mistake out of the public fund.
As an exceptional case, which you very well know, you can't take undue shelter of Circular 141 & para 103 of Def PPI in the guise of a pensioner.
In my views, the bank officials have taken a very soft action by merely putting a lien on your FDR for the misappropriation of huge public money, where they could have even preferred to seek an attachment decree against your property from the court of law.
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 03 July 2014
In such cases there can be connivance of bank official for causing fraudulent excess payment.
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 04 July 2014
You have no case at all in your favour. There is no merit in your arguments. The action of the banker is totally justified and none of the experts has ever tried to say you "yes boss".
Guest
(Querist) 04 July 2014
So Jury is out. The bank was fully justified in its alleged over payments of Rs 15 Lacs..It is fully justified to sleep over it for full 40 months and it is fully justified in forced closing of all my FDRs valued at 19 Lacs invoking banker's lien. Para 103 of Def PPI issued by MoD GOI is of no value for a PDA bank. I will certainly draw the attention of the MoD (PCDA)GOI standing councils on the experts' comments. It confirms my believe LAW is an Ass.
Guest
(Querist) 05 July 2014
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10203976447394607&set=a.3728606616815.2166432.1325441141&type=1
That's Ex-Justice Khare's comments on our Judiciary..I request those who are insisting on my going to the court where one set of Black Robed Advocates will argue endlessly for the next 22 years with another set of similarly robed lawyers engaged. The bank officials who made the over payment, he manager, the auditors will meanwhile get their pay promotions etc.LAW IS AN ASS.
Guest
(Querist) 05 July 2014
Ahttps://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=771710542857230&set=oa.601635819883494&type=1
And another..on the present status of judiciary ..
Guest
(Querist) 05 July 2014
GO to Helll..no I am not telling it..
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10203869986093141&set=gm.666070833439992&type=1
Guest
(Querist) 05 July 2014
And how bad our Devil's Advocates?
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10203867341227021&set=gm.665861376794271&type=1
Guest
(Expert) 05 July 2014
When you have not gone to the court in the instant case, what is the relevance of the news item posted by Krishnaraj Rao at facebook link: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10203976447394607&set=a.3728606616815.2166432.1325441141&type=1
?
You very well know that you are 100% wrong in this case, you would definitely not go to court by thinking "grapes are sour" and nothing more can be expected of you, except abusing the law, as revealed from a very derogatory remark made by you about law on that post.
Guest
(Expert) 05 July 2014
Bravo! From your reference to another facebook post made by Mr. Tejinder Singh about Judicial System, a brave defence personnel of the rank of Lt. Col. is found to be afraid of getting caught in the net of judicial system, as found at the facebook link at: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=771710542857230&set=oa.601635819883494&type=1
Anyway, again the phrase applies, "grapes are sour."
Guest
(Expert) 05 July 2014
You may not be telling that, but your preference for yourself is known to the members when you refer to another Krishanraj Rao's picture at the Facebook link at: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10203869986093141&set=gm.666070833439992&type=1
Anyway, again the phrase applies, "grapes are sour."
Guest
(Expert) 05 July 2014
Better taste the experience for yourself by taking your present case to the court of law, instead of relying on Krishnaraj Rao's another post through picture at: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10203867341227021&set=gm.665861376794271&type=1
I know you won't try to taste the experience in the instant case, where you can be caught at totally wrong foot.
Anyway, again the phrase applies, "grapes are sour."
V R SHROFF
(Expert) 05 July 2014
How LONG OUR EXPERTS taste...............
he is endless.. ALWAYS........
USE FULL STOP AT THE EARLIEST......
The moment one feel, it is suitably replied..
Guest
(Querist) 06 July 2014
Ignoring some of the comments made aimed at shooting the messenger I think time has come to call a spade a spade. In not so distant past even the bravest used to think hundred times before taking up directly against the contradictory controversial order or verdict of our LORDSHEEPS.Not now. One can see there are at least 50 odd acct in the Facebok which are focussing on the core issue of mis-use or abuse of power vested on the judges.
Now here if we consider for a moment that experts are equivalent to senior lawyers who guides their juniors it should be in the asking whether we simply believe what all are talked here and apply it inside the court of law.
In the instant case there are glaring contradictions that could be found from the advices given by the experts.
1) Advices sought from the Experts.."Legally tenable interpretation of a letter issued by the Reserve Bank of India to all the PDA banks ( Pension Disbursing Auth which includes Defence Pensioners as well) to credit the over paid amount in LUMP SUM to the govt of India as otherwise it is tantamount to loss of govt money.It was issued in Jun 2009. Immediately afterwards circular No 141 was issued by the PCDA MoD GOI that notwithstanding RECOVERY FROM THE DEFENCE PENSIONERS will continue to be guided as per the Def Pension Pay Instructions whereby the PDA bank can have the liberty to recover one third of pension at the maxm without approval of PCDA and the Pensioner.The Experts here however as per their interpretation said that the RBI letter dated Jun 2009 was all about recovery of over payment in lump sum.
While surfing again I could get the para 103 of Def PPI both 2005 & 2012 versions. It instruct the PDAs for the Defence Pensioners that if the over payment is detected after 12 months PDA bank has no option but report the matter to PCDA MoD GOI which will decide the case with without consultation with the ministry of Def GOI to resolve the issue.
Here bank on the very day of informing the pensioner about over payment of Rs 15 Lacs 40 months earlier asked approval from its so called controlling auth (Zonal Officer of the same Bank)to forced closed all my FDRs ( valued then at Rs 19 Lacs including interest component)and also got its approval (as stated by the Br Manager in its affidavit to BO Hyd on 21 Oct 2013 , document is uploaded in Files section.
They have claimed to have exercise BANKER'S GENERAL LIEN.
If BANKER'S LIEN WAS all pervasive what was the reason or need for RBI to issue such an instruction in Jun 2009 on credit of over paid amount to the GOI in lump sum? OR WAS IT MEANT ONLY FOR THE DEFAULTING BANK TO CREDIT THE OVERPAID PENSION IN LUMP SUM ( and to recover it as per the liad down recovery rules for Defence Personnel and others? WHY EXPERTS DID NOT EXAMINE THE CONTENT AS AT PARA 103 OF DEF PPI or at Circular 141? Why it occurs to me that Experts are actually misleading their own members by telling BANK IS RIGHT THERE IS NO PLACE FOR DEF PPI which is binding for all PDA banks disbursing pensions to the Def Pensioners.
Secondly the very fact that RBI had issued a letter in Jun 2009 on LUMP SUM credit of over paid amount to the GOI to all the PDA banks including PSU/PRIVATE BANKS it is indicative that the central regulatory bank does not believe that bank has all the power to appropriate any thing including FDRs unilaterally without approval from the court.Some of the Experts have even sugested angrily that in the instant case the PDA bank was very very kind as they could have even appropriated your properties to recover over payment made.
With due respect to all the Experts who with or without reasons have formed a believe it is best to shoot a messenger rather talking about LAW POINT my take is BANKER'S LIEN was not even available for my PDA Bank. It was to be regulated by para 103 of Def PPI 2005. It is PCDA with or without consultation with the GOI to decide and resolve the issue.How they do it it is entirely their business.
Now question arises whether a PDA bank has the right or auth to supersede the provision as at Para 103 of Def PPI 2005 now revised in 2013 by simply taking an approval from its Zonal Office and whether such is the standing orders from the Reserve Bank of India (An autonomous arm of GOI).I have filed my petition to the Deputy GOv of RBI against the order of BO Hyd as well as petitioned the Min Of Def GOI on NON-COMPLIANCE of the provision of para 103 Def PPI.
Insisting to know whether I RETIRED ON SUPERANNUATION OR NOT certainly not "AREA of Expertise" of some of the Experts.I condemn their actions.
Guest
(Expert) 06 July 2014
Harping the same tune repeatedly about RBI circular, banker's lien over your FDRs, etc.!
The irony is, you preach us "to call a spade a spade" but yourself is not ready to call a spade a spade by realising the truth.
It is not understood why you are after the LCI members to endorse your views when you very well know that views of any member over here would neither compel the bank to lift its lien on your FDRs, nor RBI can compel your bank to waive of the recovery and lift their lien from your FDRs, nor you can compel any court to decide your case on your own concept even if endorsed by 100% of the members of the LCI. Guidelines are merely for the purpose of guidance to be followed as far as possible, not mandatory to follow in all the cases, specifically in exceptional cases.
Better convince the competent court to call a spade a spade based on your own voews. You need not convince any of the members here. They have expressed their opinions on your case, now it is up to you to agree or not on such opinions.
But, alas, you don't have any faith even in judiciary, as revealed from your previous four posts with reference to photos.
