IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.
Trailokya Baruah S/o Late Dino Ram Baruah – appellant
Versus
The State Of Assam And 6 Ors. – Respondent
WP(C) 2277 of 2023
Decided on : 03-05-2023
Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969 - Rule 22 - Retirement benefits - Payment of pension - Prayed that steps be taken to remove discrepancies for smooth implementation of process of payment of pension and he permitted authority to deduct amount - Held, Petitioner approached Court seeking a writ of mandamus thereby prohibiting respondents from recovery/adjustment of salary drawn by petitioner and for a further direction upon respondent authorities to pay petitioner his pension GPF, Gratuity and other benefits, if any, at earliest without any deduction from salary - Court is of opinion that instead of entertaining petition at this stage, it would be in interest of justice that petitioner approaches respondent No.2 by filing a representation requesting concerned respondent authority not to recover from petitioner on account of over stay from retirement benefits of petitioner and also for claiming pension as well as pensionary benefits, more so taking into account that petitioner rendered his service as claimed without any objection from respondents – Petition disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr. B. D. Das, the learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. K. Phukan, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. D. Borah, the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 5. Also heard Ms. A. Lala, the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the Principal General Accountant (A&E), Assam as well as Mr. R. Borpujari, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Treasury Officer, Nagaon.
2. The instant writ petition has been taken up for disposal at the motion stage.
3. The case of the petitioner herein is that the petitioner was appointed as the Pharmacist in the Manja Primary Health Centre, Karbi Anglong on 10.10.1984 on temporary basis, and subsequently, the service of the petitioner was confirmed by the Chief Medical & Health Officer, Karbi Anglong, Diphu w.e.f 10.10.1984 vide an dated 12-9-1988. Accordingly, the Service Book of the petitioner was prepared by the authority at his initial place of posting after submission of his school certificates and other educational documents. It is further stated in the writ petition that pursuant to an order dated 02.11.1988 issued by the Additional Director of Health Services, Assam, the petitioner was transferred from his initial place of posting at Karbi Anglong to Upper Doomdomia Primary Health Centre situated in the district of Nagaon in the same capacity and posted against a newly created post vide Government letter No. HLA 441/87/34 dated 24.09.1987. Upon issuance of the order dated 02.11.2077, the petitioner was released from Manja Primary Health Centre, Karbi Anglong vide order dated 08.02.1989 issued by the Senior Medical & Health Officer, i/c, Manja Primary Health Centre, Manja, Karbi Anglong and on 09.02.1989, the petitioner joined in his new place of posting at Upper Doomdomia Primary Health Centre in the district of Nagaon. The petitioner thereupon continued to render his service.
4. In the month of September, 2022, a verbal communication was received by the petitioner from the office of the respondent No.3, i.e. the Director of Health Services, Nagaon that there was a discrepancy as regards his date of birth recorded in his Service Book and the date of birth as per the school certificate and admit card submitted by the petitioner at the time of joining his employment. It was informed to the petitioner by the respondent authority that the date of birth recorded in his Service Book was 01.07.1963 whereas in the certificates and admit card submitted by the petitioner, his age was shown as 16 years 10 months and 00 days as on 1st of March, 1977 and accordingly as per the date recorded in the H.S.L.C certificates and admit card, the date of birth of the petitioner should be 01.05.1960 instead of 01.07.1963 as recorded in the Service Book. The petitioner was informed by the respondent No.3 that in view of the date of birth shown in the school certificates and admit card, the petitioner ought to have retired on 31.05.2020, and as such, the process of disbursal of retirement benefits to the petitioner cannot be initiated unless and until the petitioner undertakes that he would have no objection if the pay and allowances made to him during his overstayed period be adjusted towards his retirement benefits.
5. The petitioner thereupon as could be seen from the perusal of Anenxure-5 to the writ petition submitted a communication to the Joint Director of Health Services in vernacular. The translated portion of the said communication is at Page No.33, Annexure-5 of the writ petition. In the said communication, the petitioner had agreed that there were discrepancies occurred as regards his date of birth recorded in the Service Book and his H.S.L.C Certificate, and as such, prayed that steps be taken to remove the discrepancies for smooth implementation of the process of payment of pension and he permitted the authority to deduct the amount which he ought to have returned to the Department from the amount which he was entitled to get f
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.
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 salary for overstay is impermissible where no fraud is established, and the employee was allowed to work without objection from the employer.
An employer has a mandatory duty to timely process pension papers. A retiree cannot be denied terminal benefits due to service gaps caused by administrative deadlocks or departmental delays where no ....
Service - Retirement benefits - Not entitled for - Petitioner appears to be not bona-fide and a wrong doer cannot claim the privilege of his own wrongful conduct and it will be wholly unjustified one....
Recovery of excess payments made without employee fault is impermissible, especially if it causes hardship.
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.