SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Cal) 1227

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Rabindranath Samanta, J.
Rafik Sekh - Appellant
Versus
State Of West Bengal & Ors. - Respondents
WPA No. 20224, 20227, 20231 of 2022
Decided On : 02-12-2022

Advocates appeared:
Narayan Chandra Mondal, Advocate, Chandan Chakraborty, Advocate, Shraddha Satpati, Advocate, Sirsanya Bandopadhyay, Advocate, Tapati Samanta, Advocate

Recovery from retired employees and entitlement to interest on deducted amounts from retiral benefits.

Headnote:

Deduction - Retiral Benefits - Memo No. 33-EDN(B) dated 7th March,1990, State of Punjab and Others-Vs- Rafiq Masih (White Washer) (2015) 4 SCC 334, State of West Bengal and Others -Vs- Smt. Ila Giri and Ors 2014(3)CLJ (CAL) 271 - The court discussed the illegality of deducting an overdrawn amount from the retiral benefits of a retired employee, citing legal provisions and precedents. The court also highlighted the impermissibility of recovery from retired employees and the entitlement to interest on the deducted amount.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a retired Librarian, challenged the deduction of Rs. 1,73,718 from his retiral benefits, claiming it was impermissible after his retirement. The respondent authorities argued that the petitioner had overdrawn the amount during his service and had admitted to it in a letter.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the deduction from the retiral benefits of the petitioner was legally impermissible, citing precedents and legal provisions. The court directed the respondents to refund the deducted amount with interest.

Issues: The main issue was the legality of deducting an overdrawn amount from the retiral benefits of a retired employee, and the petitioner's admission in a letter regarding the overdrawn amount.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that recovery from a retired employee or an employee due to retire within one year of the order of recovery, and recovery from an employee when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years before the order of recovery, is impermissible. The court also emphasized the entitlement to interest on the deducted amount.

Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of with the direction for the respondents to refund the deducted amount with interest, and the petitioner was entitled to interest at 6% per annum from the date of deduction until the amount is refunded.

JUDGMENT

Rabindranath Samanta, J. - Challenge in this writ petition is against the Order of deduction of Rs. 1,73,718/- as over drawn from the retiral benefits of the petitioner.

2. The petitioner states that he was appointed as Librarian of Shibnath Shastri Pathagar, P.O.- Joynagar Majilpur, South 24-Parganas on 21st September, 1984. His appointment was approved by the District Social Education Officer, South 24-Parganas. He retired from service on superannuation on 30th June, 2020, but his retiral benefits were not released by the respondent authorities in time.

3. The respondent authorities issued Pension Payment Order on 5th August, 2021. By the Pension Payment Order the respondent authorities deducted a sum of Rs. 1,73,718/- from his retiral benefits on the ground that he had overdrawn this amount while he was in service. The petitioner submits that the respondent authorities cannot deduct such amount after his retirement.

4. The petitioner submits that he is entitled to get back the aforesaid deducted amount with 12% compound interest. On such grounds, the petitioner seeks direction upon the respondent authorities to release or refund the deducted amount with 12% compound interest thereon to him immediately.

5. The respondent No. 3, the Director of Library Services and the respondent No.4, the District Library Officer in their affidavit-in-opposition admit that the petitioner was appointed as Librarian under the Directorate of Library Services, Government of West Bengal on 21st September, 1984 at the scale of pay of Rs.1040-1920. The petitioner exercised option on 1st September, 1986. The petitioner obtained bachelor degree in Library and Information Science on 14th August, 1991. By an Order dated 6th June, 2016 passed by this Court in W.P No. 9065 (W) of 2016 filed by the petitioner, the scale of pay of the petitioner was re-fixed at the scale of Rs.1390-2970. Accordingly, the District Library Officer, by his Order dated 28th August, 2018, re-fixed the pay scale of the petitioner at the scale of Rs.1390-2970. Although the next increment of the petitioner was scheduled on 1st August, 1992, but, erroneously, the increment was paid to him on 1st September, 1991. As per Rule 7 of Memo No. 33-EDN(B) dated 7th March,1990 an increment should be given to each and every employee only after completion of a year. But, the petitioner was given two increments in a year erroneously. By a letter dated 29th June, 2020 addressed to the District Library Officer the petitioner admitted that he received additional increment after the earlier writ petition filed by him was disposed of. In the letter the petitioner intended to adjust the entire excess amount drawn by him during the tenure of his service from his gratuity amount. Owing to wrong fixation of scale of pay a sum of Rs. 1,73,718/- was paid in excess to the petitioner and the said amount was deducted from his retiral benefits. The answering respondents submit that the excess amount was not the income of the petitioner, but it was an overpayment due to procedural lapses on their part. On such grounds the answering respondents seek dismissal of the writ petition.

6. In his affidavit-in-reply the petitioner denies the averments as made in the affidavit-in-opposition. The petitioner states that though he retired from service on superannuation on 30th June, 2020 his retiral dues were not processed even after lapse of fourteen months after his retirement. The letter dated 29th June, 2020 submitted by him under his handwriting will demonstrate that the petitioner was suffering from various health conditions and facing serious financial hardship due to non-disbursement of his retiral benefits. Faced with financial crisis, he yielded to the pressure of the respondent No. 4 to write a consent letter. Denying and disputing the averments of the affidavit-in-opposition the petitioner reiterates his stand that the respondent-authorities cannot deduct the aforesaid amount out of his retiral benefits.

7.

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

    Please visit our Training & Support
    Center or Contact Us for assistance

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon Back to top