Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
ANANYA BANDYOPADHYAY
Abhoycharan Basu – Appellant
Versus
Paschim Banga Gramin Bank – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
ANANYA BANDYOPADHYAY, J.
1. The petitioner had prayed for a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondent Bank to refund the amount of Rs 1,27,870/- (Rupees One Lakh, Twenty Seven Thousand, Eight Hundred and Seventy only) which was deducted by the Respondent Bank from the SB account of the petitioner and his wife bearing No. 11210110009836.
2. The petitioner was a retired officer, Scale-1 (OJM-1), of the Paschim Banga Gramin Bank (hereinafter referred to as ‘Respondent Bank’). On attaining the age of 60 he retired from his service on November 30, 2014 while he was an Assistant Manager of Banamalinagar Branch, District- Howrah. He had been receiving his pension on and from April 1, 2018.
3. The Respondent Bank issued a notice on December 14, 2018 that as per an order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on April 25, 2018 in SLP (C) 39288/2012, the Officers/Employees, retirees and family members of the deceased employees/officers of the Respondent Bank were eligible to opt for pensions and application for the same should be submitted in writing within April 3, 2019 in order for the applicants to become eligible for the pension as per the notification at the concerned
Unauthorized deductions from a pensioner's account without valid consent amount to a violation of principles of natural justice under Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution.
Recoveries from pensioners are permissible only under strict guidelines to prevent hardship, emphasizing protection for retired employees against unjust financial demands.
Recovery of excess payments from retired employees is impermissible without adherence to natural justice, especially when payments were made for an extended period without notice.
The Supreme Court's guidelines in Rafiq Masih apply to all stakeholders involved in pension payment and receipt, including disbursing banks and family pensioners, ensuring equitable and just recovery....
No disciplinary proceedings are pending against the petitioner. Under such circumstances, withholding of retirement benefits under the guise of the impugned Memo is unjust, arbitrary.
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
