Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
ANIRUDDHA ROY, J.
Kalpita Moitra (Chakladar) – Petitioner
Versus
The State of West Bengal and Others – Respondents
W.P.A. No. 21136 of 2022
Decided On : 20-06-2023
EDUCATION - RETIREMENT BENEFITS - OVERDRAWN AMOUNT - RECOVERY - ESTOPPEL - EQUITABLE RELIEF: An employee is not entitled to equitable relief to prevent the recovery of an overdrawn amount if they were aware of the overdrawn amount for a substantial period prior to retirement and failed to return it. The employer is not estopped from recovering the overdrawn amount if they took steps to inform the employee of the overdrawn amount and pursued the issue with the employee prior to their retirement.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a retired Head Mistress, sought release of her retiral benefits and pension. The respondent authorities denied her claim on the ground that she had received an excess payment from the public exchequer and had been informed of the mistake in her pay fixation since 2014. The petitioner contended that the authorities were estopped from claiming the overdrawn amount and that she was entitled to her retiral benefits without any deduction.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the petitioner was aware of the overdrawn amount since 2012, six years prior to her retirement. The authorities had pursued the issue with her and she had not taken any steps to return the overdrawn amount. The Court held that the petitioner was not entitled to equitable relief and that the authorities were not estopped from recovering the overdrawn amount.
Issues: 1. Whether the respondent authorities were estopped from claiming the overdrawn amount from the petitioner? 2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to equitable relief to prevent the recovery of the overdrawn amount?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The principle of estoppel does not apply where the employer has taken steps to inform the employee of the overdrawn amount and has pursued the issue with the employee prior to their retirement. 2. An employee is not entitled to equitable relief to prevent the recovery of an overdrawn amount if they were aware of the overdrawn amount for a substantial period prior to retirement and failed to return it.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed without any order as to costs. The Court directed the authorities to recover the overdrawn amount from the petitioner and to release her superannuation benefits within ten weeks from the date of the judgment.
JUDGMENT :
ANIRUDDHA ROY, J.
Facts:
1. The petitioner was a retired Head Mistress at Khadimpur Girls High School, District- Dakshin Dinajpur. The petitioner was appointed as Head Mistress on September 28, 2001. Prior thereto the petitioner was the Assistant Head Mistress of the said school and under a Government Memo No. 1245/GA dated September 08, 2000, the petitioner’s pay scale was re-fixed w.e.f. December 20, 1999 with an additional increment mentioned therein. From the post of Head Mistress the petitioner had retired on May 31, 2018.
2. During her service tenure the Jurisdictional District Inspector of School (SE), Dakshin Dinajpur (for short, the D.I.) issued a memo regarding re-fixation of scale of pay in which some mistake was there which was not explained to the petitioner. The petitioner claimed to have made her representation and the petitioner claimed that no step for correction of such mistake had taken place. However, no such representation or document was available on record in the instant writ petition.
3. Till the retirement no step was taken by the respondent authorities for recovery of any alleged overdrawn amount neither the mistake was explained to the petitioner, as claimed by the petitioner.
4. Before retirement the petitioner filed a writ petition being W.P. No. 3772(W) of 2015 (for short, the first writ petition) with a prayer for re-fixation of pay scale for the post of head mistress of the said school and a prayer was made for withdrawal of the Memo dated June 18, 2014 issued by the Deputy Director of Education Department, Dakshin Dinajpur. However, the respondent authorities did not take any step on the basis of the said Memo dated June 18, 2014 till retirement and the petitioner had received her salary. The said first writ petition was withdrawn.
5. The petitioner then filed the second writ petition being W.P. No. 15686(W) of 2019 (for short, the second writ petition) and withdrew the said first writ petition. The employment of the petitioner for the post of head mistress was approved w.e.f. September 28, 2001 at a scale of Rs.8000-Rs.13,500/- and the petitioner enjoyed the said scale till her retirement. After her retirement, the petitioner made a representation before relevant authorities seeking release of her retiral benefits and pension. The relevant school authorities also submitted all the records before the D.I. and those were accepted by the Office of the D.I.
6. Since the pension was not released, the petitioner filed the second writ petition, with a prayer to release the provisional pension in accordance with law.
7. Pursuant to the directions made in the second writ petition the D.I. issued a Memo No. 85/P.PEN dated January 15, 2015 for granting provisional pension to the petitioner on the basis of the last basic pay amount of Rs.40,200/- Annexure P-1 at page 34 to the writ petition.
8. By an order dated June 07, 2022 Annexure P-3 at page 37 to the writ petition, the second writ petition was disposed of by a Coordinate Bench directing the D.I. to dispose of the representation of the petitioner dated September 12, 2019.
9. Pursuant to and in terms of the said order of the Coordinate Bench dated June 07, 2022 the D.I. passed the impugned reasoned order dated June 30, 2022, Annexure P-3A at page 43 to the writ petition. Through the said impugned order the claim of the petitioner for receiving her retiral benefit/pension was rejected principally on the ground that since 2014 the petitioner was informed and accordingly the petitioner had knowledge of her mistaken pay fixation and the petitioner had enjoyed the overdrawn amount since at the time of her fixation of pay as head mistress w.e.f. September 28, 2001.
10. The respondent no. 3 by its Memo dated November 24, 2021 also informed the D.I. that the petitioner had received an excess payment from public exchequer and the salary approving authorities was advised to take step in terms of Memo dated June 18, 2014, Annexure P-6 at page 132 to the writ pet
An employee is not entitled to equitable relief to prevent the recovery of an overdrawn amount if they were aware of the overdrawn amount for a substantial period prior to retirement and failed to re....
Recovery of overdrawn amounts from a retiree is impermissible post-cessation of the employer-employee relationship.
Recovery of excess amount paid to a retired employee just before their retirement may be impermissible, as established by the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih (supra).
Recovery from retired employees and entitlement to interest on deducted amounts from retiral benefits.
Recovery of excess payments from employees is impermissible without evidence of misrepresentation or fraud, emphasizing equitable relief in pension matters.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
