Pension recovery: Accountants to blame for pensioner’s travails

Ombudsman says recoveries be limited to one year.


Our Correspondent January 01, 2014
The ombudsman ruled that the excess payment made by the NBP staff was a result of the district accounts and treasury officers’ inefficiency. PHOTO: FILE

LAHORE:


Punjab Ombudsman Javed Mahmood on Wednesday directed the Finance Department to review the National Bank of Pakistan’s system of payment of pensions and take necessary action regarding the matter of pension recoveries due to errors on the bank’s part.


Mahmood observed that the system of post auditing pension payments had lost its efficacy despite having adequate staff.  Incorrect entries by the bank staff would lead to excess payment of pensions and pensioners could be asked to pay back the excess amount released at any time. “Thus the pensioners suffer due to the bank’s errors,” he said.



The ombudsman issued the directions on a complaint by a retired beldar from Khanpur. The complainant, who had retired in 1995, said he had visited the district accounts officer in 2012 regarding a 7 per cent increase in his pension. Instead of giving him the increment, the DAO calculated recovery for 15 years. An investigation into the matter revealed that the Khanpur NBP had been erroneously paying the man more than was due him. The ombudsman ruled that the excess payment made by the NBP staff was a result of the district accounts and treasury officers’ inefficiency. Mahmood observed that such recoveries must be restricted to only one year.

He said since pensioners were not involved in the process of fixing increments, the NBP staff, district accounts officer and treasury officer were responsible for the problem. They are responsible for maintaining entries in pension books and conducting the pension post audit...but the pensioners pay for their errors.

Published in The Express Tribune, January 2nd, 2014. 

COMMENTS

Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ