THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Devashis Baruah, J.
Baharul Islam S/o Late Soleman Ali - Appellant
Vs.
The State Of Assam And Ors. - Respondent
WP(C) No. 1873 of 2022, WP(C) No. 4936 of 2021
Decided On : 25-04-2023
Constitution of India,1950 – Education/Institute - Retirement from Service - Leave salary - Treasury challan - Pension - Block Elementary Education - Stipendiary - Gratuity - Whether official required to take steps for issuance of superannuation notice in doing so - Held, These notices for recovery or recovery so made by concerned Department employee had worked come to light at a very late stage after actual superannuation - Either it comes to light at behest of employee or a vigilant official of Department and mostly when Director of Pension or Office of Principal Accountant General (A&E) points out deficiency as regards date of birth which have resulted in overstay - It can also be seen that when deficiency is pointed out concerned Department issues notice for recovery to employee or recovers from employee - law laid down in being well settled it is not known why concerned Departments or for that matter officials responsible for issuing superannuation notices are not vigilant - Petition Disposed of.
JUDGMENT AND ORDER :
Heard Mr. A. M. Barbhuiya, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. B. Kaushik, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Elementary Education Department. I have also heard Mr. R. Borpujari, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Finance Department and Mr. S. R. Baruah, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Director of Pension.
2. Both the writ petitions being connected are taken up for disposal vide the common judgment and order. The facts of the instant case is that the petitioner was initially appointed as Stipendiary Teacher on 17.11.1999 on a fixed pay of Rs.900/-. The petitioner underwent Basic Training Course and got the regular scale of pay w.e.f. 17.01.2006. Thereupon, the petitioner retired on 10.08.2021 as per the retirement notice issued by the Block Elementary Education Officer Paschim Nalbari of Nalbari District. After his retirement, his pension papers were duly sent to the Director of Pension. The Block Elementary Education Officer, Paschim Nalbari issued a communication dated 13.09.2021 to the petitioner whereby it was mentioned that there was excess drawal of monthly salary for the period from 01.02.2018 to 30.06.2021 i.e. an amount of Rs.17,07,100/- and the petitioner was asked to pay the said amount through treasury challan and submit the challan copy within a short period for preparation of the pension etc. Being aggrieved by the said communication dated 13.09.2021, the petitioner has approached this Court challenging the said communication and with a direction upon the respondent authorities to release the pension of the petitioner without recovery and/or repayment in accordance with law.
3. It appears from records that the said writ petition i.e. WP(C) No.4936/2021 was filed on 20.09.2021 and this Court vide an order dated 28.09.2021 issued notice making it returnable by 6 (six) weeks and in the interim directed the respondent authorities that the alleged excess payment of the salary shall not be recovered until further orders. The record reveals that the respondents have not filed any affidavit in WP(C) No.4936/2021. It further appears that the petitioner had filed an Interlocutory Application i.e. I.A.(Civil) No.1828/2021 for a direction upon the respondents to release the provisional pension of the petitioner till the disposal of the WP(C) No.4936/2021. Vide an order dated 11.11.2021, this Court disposed of the said Interlocutory Application with a direction upon the Elementary Education Department to process and arrive at their decision as to at what rate the petitioner would be entitled to provisional pension and thereupon to pay the provisional pension from the month of December, 2021 onwards. It further appears that there was another Interlocutory Application which was filed by the petitioner being I.A.(Civil) No.2177/2022 with a prayer to direct the official respondents to release the pensionary benefits of leave salary, gratuity and GP fund and other benefits to the petitioner as admissible under law. The said application however is still pending.
4. Subsequent thereto, the petitioner filed another writ petition i.e. WP(C) No.1873/2022. In the said writ petition, it has been mentioned that pursuant to the order dated 28.09.2021 passed in WP(C) No.4936/2021, the petitioner on 01.10.2021 submitted the said order before the Block Elementary Education Officer, Paschim Nalbari as the said official had issued the order dated 13.09.2021 and he was responsible for processing the pension papers of the petitioner. It has also been mentioned in the subsequent writ petition about the order dated 11.11.2021 passed in I.A.(Civil) No.1828/2021 and about filing of a contempt case being Cont.Cas(C) No.65/2022 for violating the order dated 11.11.2021 passed by this Court. It has also been mentioned that the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Nalbari vide an order dated 11.02.2022 granted provisional pension of Rs.1,70,792/- for t
State of Bihar and Others Vs. Pandey Jagdishwar Prasad reported in (2009) 3 SCC 117
State of Punjab and Others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Others reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334
Point of Law : Note under Service Rule 8 of the FR & SR clearly stipulates that the Head of the Office should record the date of birth in the Service Book of a non-gazetted government servant on his ....
Recovery of excess salary from a retired employee is impermissible when no fraud is established, and the employee worked without objection for an extended period.
Recovery of excess payments is impermissible if it causes undue hardship, especially when no fraud is involved.
Recovery from the salaries for the period of overstay was unjustified due to the petitioners' good faith service and the authorities' failure to detect discrepancies in their dates of birth.
Recovery from pensionary benefits is impermissible when the employee has rendered service during the overstayed period without prior notice of the excess payments to be recovered.
Recovery of salary for overstay is impermissible where no fraud is established, and the employee was allowed to work without objection from the employer.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.