Anil Kumar Kuila vs State Of West Bengal & Ors.

With the consent of the parties this matter is taken up for hearing today. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein

the petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated April 2, 2015 passed by the District Inspector of Schools(SE), Paschim Medinipur wherein the said

respondent authority has raised an objection of an overdrawn amount by the petitioner for payment of the pensionary benefits.

Counsel on behalf of the petitioner submits that the District Inspector of Schools(SE), Paschim Medinipur has acted without jurisdiction and against the

principles established in law. It is his submission that the petitioner retired on January 31, 2015 and this order has been passed subsequent to the

retirement of the petitioner that is illegal in law. He relied on the Apex Court judgement in State of Punjab & Ors. vs. Rafiq Masih(White Washer) &

Ors. reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 [Quoram Jagdish Singh Khehar and Arun Mishra, JJ] wherein the Apex Court held that it was not permissible in

law to make recovery from employees to whom payments have been mistakenly made by the employer after retirement of the said employees. The

relevant paragraph of the above judgement is provided below:-

“18. It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship which would govern employees on the issue of recovery, where payments have

mistakenly been made by the employer, in excess of their entitlement. Be that as it may, based on the decision referred to hereinabove, we may, as a

ready reference, summarise the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law.

(i) Recovery from the employees belonging to Class II and Class IV service(or Group C and Group D service).

(ii) Recovery from the retired employees, or the employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery.

(iii) Recovery from the employees, when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery is

issued.

(iv) Recovery in cases where an employee has wrongfully been required to discharge duties of a higher post, and has been paid accordingly, even

though he should have rightfully been required to work against an inferior post.

(v) In any other case, where the court arrives at the conclusion, that recovery if made from the employee, would be iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary to

such an extent, as would far outweigh the equitable balance of the employer’s right to recover.â€​

Counsel on behalf of the petitioner also submits that the reason for seeking refund of the overdrawn amount is not correct as the petitioner had been

granted the Post Graduate scale in a manner approved in law by an order passed by the District Inspector of Schools(SE), Paschim Medinipur by an

order dated July 31, 1996. Counsel on behalf of the respondent fairly submits that seeking refund of overdrawn amount is not permissible in law as per

the Supreme Court judgement.

In view of the above, the order dated April 2, 2015 and the earlier order dated February 13, 2015 seeking refund of overdrawn amount is set aside

with a direction on the District Inspector of Schools(SE), Paschim Medinipur to sanction the pension of the petitioner within three weeks from the date

of communication of this order and submit all the papers to the Director of Pension, Provident Fund and Group Insurance for issuance of the Pension

Payment Order in favour of the petitioner within two weeks thereafter. With the above direction the writ petition is disposed of.