Back
2010 Supreme(Jhk) 956
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
Dhirubhai Naranbhai Patel, J.
Md. Yasin - Appellant
Vs.
The State Of Jharkhand And Others - Respondent
W.P. (S) No. 2589 of 2009
Decided On : 04-05-2010
Important Points
Subject
Civil Law - Pension Law
Act Referred
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.14
JHARKHAND PENSION RULES : R.202, R.200(1), R.43, R.43(b)
Headnote
Pension Recovery - Violation of Jharkhand Pension Rules, 2000 - Rule 202, Rule 43 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Rule 202, Rule 43 of Jharkhand Pension Rules, 2000 - The judgment discusses the violation of Jharkhand Pension Rules, 2000, particularly Rule 202 and Rule 43, and emphasizes the necessity of following the prescribed procedure before deducting any amount from retirement benefits. The court highlights the importance of serving notice to the retired government employee and issuing a speaking order with reasons before deducting any amount from the pension or gratuity.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a teacher, was ordered to refund excess drawn salary from 1997 to 2006 without inquiry, in violation of Jharkhand Pension Rules, 2000.
Finding of the Court:
The court quashed the order, emphasizing the violation of Jharkhand Pension Rules, 2000, and the necessity of following the prescribed procedure before deducting any amount from retirement benefits.
Issues: Violation of Jharkhand Pension Rules, 2000, regarding deduction from retirement benefits without following the prescribed procedure.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the necessity of serving notice to the retired government employee and issuing a speaking order with reasons before deducting any amount from the pension or gratuity.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the order for recovery of excess salary was quashed.
For the Appellant : Birendra Kr. Jha
JUDGMENT :
D.N. Patel, J.
The present petition has been preferred mainly against an order, passed by the District Superintendent of Education, Dumka, dated 7th January, 2009 (Annexure-1 to the memo of petition), whereby, excess drawn salary from the Year, 1997 to the Year, 2006, has been ordered to be recovered from the Pension and Gratuity of the present petitioner and that too, without holding any inquiry, worth the name, and in utter violation of the Jharkhand Pension Rules, 2000 and also in gross violation of the law, laid down by this Court. The decisions, reported in :
(a) 2007 (4) JLJR 457
The counsel for the petitioner relies upon the aforesaid two decisions as well as a decision, rendered by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 1019 of 2009, dated 27th June. 2009, and submitted that without holding any inquiry, no amount from Pension or Gratuity can be deducted, when salary was paid from the Year. 1997 to the Year. 2006 without any misrepresentation or fraud, played by the present petitioner. The suggestion of the Office of the Accountant General is not conclusive evidence at all. Such types of letters cannot be implemented like a judgment or a decree for encashment of the money from the retirement benefits. On the contrary, such type of letters of the Accountant General, ought to be seen from the view point of the Jharkhand Pension Rule, 2000, and in accordance with rules, after giving proper notice and adequate opportunity of being heard, only, the amount can be deducted and that if there is no misrepresentation by the present petitioner for getting any higher salary, never such amount can be deducted, in view of the decision, rendered by the aforesaid Full-Bench of this Court.
2. It is further submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the letter of the Accountant General is for awakening the senses of the Government officer, but, it is not a conclusive evidence for the recovery of the amount and, therefore, the order at Annexure-'1', passed by the District Superintendent of Education, dated 7th January, 2009, deserves to be quashed and set aside.
3. Learned Counsel for the respondent-State has submitted that the petitioner has wrongfully been paid higher salary and, therefore, when the whole matter had been sent for fixation of Pension and Gratuity to the Accountant General Office, this aspect of the matter has been pointed out by the Office of the Accountant General that instead of Rs. 7300/- per month, the petitioner has drawn Rs. 7700/- per month and, therefore, the order, Annexure-'1' has been passed by the District Superintendent of Education, Dumka and no body should be allowed to retain the benefit, wrongly given under the law and, therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed.
4. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the office of Accountant General, Jharkhand, Ranchi, i.e. Respondent No. 3, who has submitted that it is true that the petitioner was wrongly given salary of Rs. 7700/- per month and, therefore, a letter was written by the Accountant General Office to the Government, but, never it has been suggested that the amount should be deducted without following the law. It ought to be kept in mind by the Government officers that the Jharkhand Pension Rules, 2000, ought to have been followed scrupulously, especially Rule, 202 to be read with Sections 197 and 199 of the Jharkhand Pension Rules, 2000 and in the light of circulars, issued by the Government of Jharkhand from time to time, the amount ought to have been deducted after following the procedure, as established by the Jharkhand Pension Rules, 2000.
5. Having heard learned Counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I hereby, quash and set aside, the order, passed by the District Superintendent of Education, Dumka, dated 7th January, 2009 (Annexure-'1' to the memo of petition) for following facts and reasons:
(i) The petitioner was serving as a Teacher with school, managed and controlled by the
