IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
KARDAK ETE, J.
Smti P. Bongei Phom W/o Late Hamvok Phom – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Nagaland And Ors – Respondent
WP(C) 235 of 2022
Decided on : 19-09-2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. excess payment recovery due to administrative oversight. (Para 2 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. arguments against recovery without fault of the deceased. (Para 15 , 16 , 21 , 22) |
| 3. judicial discretion in imposing recovery post-retirement. (Para 39 , 41 , 43) |
JUDGMENT :
Heard Ms. Mika H Aye, learned counsel for the petitioner and also heard Mr. N. Angami, learned State counsel for the State respondents and Mr. N. Mozhui, learned counsel for respondent No. 5.
2. By filing this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, (wife of late Hamvok Phom, who retired as Political Assistant to Deputy Commissioner, Longleng) has assailed the Cabinet decision and the Order No. LLG/ACCTT-18/2019-2020/249 dated 08.06.2020 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Longleng for recovery of excess drawal of pay and allowances in respect of Late Hamvok Phom amounting to Rs. 14,90,273/-( Rupees Fourteen Lakh Ninety Thousand Two Hundred and Seventy Three) only, for the period from March 2015 to December, 2017 from his pension gratuity. The petitioner has also prayed for a direction to the respondents to complete the process for pension of the petitioner’s late husband within a period of two months.
3. The case in brief is that vide common order No. EST-15/79-80/5211-14 dated 20.02.1980, the petitioner’s late husband was appointed to the post of paid DB on contingency basis under the establishment of Deputy Commissioner, Tuensang, Nagaland in the fixed pay of Rs. 220 per month w.e.f. 10.02.1980. Thereafter vide order no. EST-15/82-83/4839-44 dated 09.02.1983, the petitioner’s late husband was appointed as Interpreter Grade-II DB on regular basis under the establishment of Deputy Commissioner, Tuensang in the pay scale of Rs. 220-5-270…-6-800-..-8- 340/-per month. Vide order No. ESTT-2/2001-02/Pt(II)/161 dated 30.06.2001, the petitioner’s late husband was given officiating promotion to Grade-I DB w.e.f., 01.07.2001 along with three others. Vide order No. LLG/ESTT-8/2009-10/277 dated 25.06.2012, the petitioner’s late husband was promoted to DB (Special Grade) in the pay band of Rs. 5200-20200 with the grade pay of Rs. 2800/-
4. Vide Home Department Notification No. GAB-1/COM/232/2010 dated 08.09.2016, on the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee, the petitioner’s late husband was promoted from Special Grade DB to the post of Political Assistant (PA) to the Deputy Commissioner, Longleng w.e.f., 19.08.2016. On superannuation, the petitioner’s late husband was released from service w.e.f., 01.03.2018 vide order No. LLG/ESSTT-17/2009-10/800 dated 07.03.2018.
5. After the retirement of the petitioner’s late husband, the Deputy Commissioner, Longleng vide its letter no. LLG/ESTT-17/2009-10/80 dated 01.05.2018 wrote to the Commissioner, Nagaland regarding submission of pension papers and all relevant documents in respect of the petitioner’s late husband. On receipt of the letter of the Deputy Commissioner, the Office of the Commissioner, Kohima vide letter No. CNE-16/RTD/LLNG/562 dated 18.06.2018, sought for release order from the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Longleng, Nagaland and for clarifying as to whether there was any break in service after the initial appointment of the petitioner’s late husband on 20.02.1980 on contingency basis as record in service book shows 01.03.1983. Vide letter dated 06.07.2018, the Deputy Commissioner, Longleng, clarified that there is no record regarding the petitioner’s late husband’s initial appointment on contingency basis. It further clarified that there is no mention in the service book that the petitioner’s late husband was earlier appointed on contingency basis as the record shows that he was appointed on 01.03.1983. Therefore, the Deputy Commissioner, Longleng requested to consider the over stay period for condonation since it was not the fault of the petitioner’s late husband and to take the date of his regular appointment as entry period.
6. It is noted that the Service Book o
Anuradha Choudhury Vs. State of Arunachal Pradesh & Ors reported in (2013) 5 GauLT 475.
Col. B.J. Akkara (Retd.) v. Government of India and Others (2006) 11 SCC 709
Chandi Prasad Uniyal & Ors Vs. State of Uttarakhand & Ors reported in (2012) 8 SCC 417.
Dipendra Nath Thakuria & Anr Vs. Assam State Electricity Board & Ors reported in (2015) 4 GauLT 32.
High Court of Punjab and Haryana & Ors Vs. Jagdev Singh reported in (2016) 14 SCC 267
State of Bihar Vs. Pandev Jagdishwar Prasad reported in (2009) 3 SCC 117.
Syed Abdul Qadir & Ors Vs. The State of Bihar reported in (2009) 3 SCC 475.
State of Punjab & Ors Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) & Ors reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334.
Shyam Babu Verma v. Union of India [(1994) 2 SCC 521 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 683 : (1994) 27 ATC 121]
Syed Abdul Qadir and Others v. State of Bihar and Others (2009) 3 SCC 475
Union of India v. M. Bhaskar [(1996) 4 SCC 416 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 967]
V. Gangaram v. Regional Jt. Director [(1997) 6 SCC 139 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 1652
Recovery of excess payments from pension dues post-retirement is impermissible without misrepresentation or fraud causing undue hardship.
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.
Recovery of excess payments from pensioners is impermissible without fraud or misrepresentation; pension is a right, not a bounty.
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.