Menaka Manna vs State Of Bengal

The petitioner has filed the present writ petition for a direction upon the respondent no. 2, the Director of Pension, Provident Fund & Group Insurance,

Government of West Bengal to refund the deducted amount of Rs. 25676/-.The petitioner’s case in short as follows that the petitioner was an

employee of the concerned Gram Panchayat. After completion of service, the petitioner’s husband retired from service on 31.8.1995 as the

petitioner attended the age of superannuation. After retirement of the petitioner the concerned authority has prepared the petitioner’s papers for

pension but the said pension papers were withheld. For the reason, the petitioner has drawn excess amount due to wrong fixation of the

petitioner’s pay scale during his/her service tenure and the authority forced the petitioner to refund the overdrawal amount. It also appears that the

concerned authority reduced the petitioner’s pay drawn at the time of retirement and calculated the overdrawal amount of Rs.25676/-.

Thereafter the Pension Payment Order was issued by the Director of Pension, Provident Fund and Group Insurance vide Memo dated 18.3.2002

wherefrom it reveals that the authority had deducted the petitioner’s basic pay drawn at the time of retirement and deducted the amount of

Rs.25676/- from the petitioner’s gratuity but before deduction no opportunity of hearing as well as notice was ever given to the petitioner for

refund. Only after retirement from the Pension Payment Order it is found that Rs.25676/- had been deducted from the petitioner’s pensionary

benefits.

Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that it is a settled law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in several cases which has

been time to time followed by the Hon’ble Division Bench as well as the learned Single Bench of this Hon’ble Court in several decisions. In

support of his/her contention, learned Advocate for the petitioner relied on the decisions reported in 1994(2) SCC 521 (Shyambabu Verma & Ors.-vs-

Union of India & Ors.) and 2009(3) Supreme Court Cases 475 (Syed Abdul Qadir & Ors. â€"vs- State of Bihar & Ors.). He/she also relied on the

latest Supreme Court decision reported in 2015 (1) Supreme Today 671 ( State of Punjab & Ors. â€"vs- Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc. ).

Paragraph 12 at pages 19 and 20 of the aforesaid decision is quoted below :

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

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

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

(i) Recovery from employees belonging to Class â€"III and Class â€"IV service (or Group ‘C’ and Group ‘D’ service).

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

(iii) Recovery from 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.†Learned Advocate for the petitioner also relied

on the Hon’ble Division Bench decision passed on 9th September, 2013 in W.P.S.T. No. 216 of 2013 (State of West Bengal & Ors. â€"vs- Asis

Das Gupta).

Learned Advocate for the petitioner further contends that the point raised by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that after long time the petitioner

approached this Hon’ble Court, therefore, the writ petition should be dismissed on the sole ground of delay for approaching before this

Hon’ble Court.

After demolishing the argument of the State respondents, learned Advocate for the petitioner contends that since it is a fault on the part of the

respondent authority where the petitioner was not a party and moreover the petitioner was not at all informed by the authority and no opportunity was

given to the petitioner by the authority before such deduction, therefore, the argument advanced by the learned Advocate for the State respondents

that the petitioner came late before this Hon’ble Court cannot be sustained. In support of his/her contention, Learned Advocate for the petitioner

relied on one unreported judgement passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench in M.A.T. No. 1067 of 2010 (Smt. Nanda Rani Das â€"vs- State of

West Bengal & Ors.) where the Hon’ble Division Bench after considering the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision reported in 2008(8) Supreme

Court Cases 648 (Union of India â€" vs- Tarsem Singh) held as follows :

“It is true that the aforesaid overdrawn amount was deducted in the year 2001 and the petitioner approached before this Court after lapse of nine

years. However, on account of the aforesaid delay no third party right has accrued and it is only the petitioner who suffered due to non-payment of

the aforesaid amount by the respondent authorities. In the case of Union of India vs. Tarsem Singh, reported in (2008) 8 Supreme Court cases, 648,

the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as follows :

For example, if the issue relates to payment or refixation of pay or pension, relief may be granted in spite of delay as it does not affect the rights of

third parties. But if the claim involved issues relating to seniority or promotion, etc., affecting others delay would render the claim scale and doctrine of

laches/limitation will be applied.â€​

Learned Advocate appearing for the State respondents submits on instruction that the State Authority is not an obligation to refund the amount which

has been deducted as it was wrongly given by the State Authority. Therefore, since the petitioner’s husband is not entitled to enjoy this amount

which was wrongly given by the State Authority when it was detected then the State Authority has the right to deduct from the petitioner’s

gratuity. Therefore, in conclusion learned Advocate for the State respondents submits that the petitioner is not entitled to get any refund as he/she was

wrongly allowed by the State Authority to enjoy the said amount for which he/she is not entitled to.

Considering the submissions advanced by the learned Advocates for the respective parties and after perusing the records and averments and also

after considering the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Syed Abdul Qadir; Rafiq Masih and Tarsem Singh (supra), I am of the

view that the amount which was wrongly deducted by the authority from the pensionary benefit of the petitioner’s husband without giving an

opportunity of hearing to the petitioner when the petitioner is very much in service cannot be accepted.

In the present case, therefore, deduction from the gratuity amount of the petitioner’s husband cannot affect the rights of any third party and

following the aforesaid decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court, I am inclined to

grant relief to the petitioner in spite of the delay. In view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shyambabu Verma & Ors.

(supra) and also in the subsequent decision in the case of Syed Abdul Qadir (supra), I hold that in the facts of the present case, recovery of excess

amount cannot be allowed after retirement of the employee concerned since the said excess amount was not paid on account of any misrepresentation

or fraud on the part of the petitioner.

Therefore, the aforesaid deduction of the overdrawn amount of Rs.25676/- from the gratuity amount of the petitioner after retirement cannot be

approved by this Court. Therefore, I hold that the impugned deduction by the respondent authority is bad in law. The concerned Treasury Officer is,

therefore, directed to pay the aforesaid overdrawn amount of Rs.25676/within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of this order

With the aforesaid direction, this writ petition is allowed. There will be no order as to costs. Urgent certified photostat copy of this order, if applied for,

shall be given to the parties as expeditiously as possible on compliance of all necessary formalities.