AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Hon''ble Mr. Justice Jayanta Kumar Biswas
The petitioner in this WP under art. 226 dated February 11, 2010 is seeking a mandamus commanding the respondents to pay him with interest Rs. 9,560 deducted from his gratuity amount towards recovery of overpaid salary. The petitioner was a primary school teacher. He retired from service on June 30, 1996. The pension payment order was issued on November 15, 2000 granting him pension as from July 1, 1996, but showing deduction of Rs. 9,560 towards recovery of overpaid salary. He claims that demanding the amount he sent a representation dated January 11, 2010.
The respondents have filed an Affidavit-in-Opposition. Their case is this. The petitioner was given revised scale under the Revision of Pay and Allowance Rules, 1990 with effect from January 1, 1986. According to provisions of the Rules, on reaching the age of 60 he was to retire on December 31, 1991. He continued till the age of 65 and retired on June 30, 1996. In view of G.O. No. 845 SE (Pry) dated August 12, 1998 (AO p.10) he was liable to refund excess salary received under the 1990 Rules.
Mr. Maity appearing for the petitioner has argued that there is nothing to show that the respondents ever took any step for enforcing the refund clause mentioned in the G.O. dated August 12, 1998.
Having opted for the revised scale under the 1990 Rules, the petitioner was to retire at the age of 60. He remained in service till the age of 65. Large number of cases were filed concerning the retirement age issue. The issue went up to the Supreme Court. After the cases were disposed of the G.O. dated August 12, 1998 was issued. In the meantime, having reached the age of 65 the petitioner retired from service on June 30, 1996.
Hence there was no scope for asking him to refund any amount. The excess payment was to be recovered from his retirement benefits; for he was not entitled to both the benefit of the revised scale and the benefit of employment up to the age of 65. Precisely for this reason excess payment made under the 1990 Rules was recovered. I do not think the respondents have committed any wrong. The petitioner accepted the position without any protest and threw a challenge after around ten years from the date the recovery was effected. For these reasons, this WP is dismissed. No costs. Certified xerox.