Recovery of pension benefits must comply with established legal frameworks, and retrospective adjustments cannot occur unless timely corrected as per governing rules.

JUDGMENT

Arindam Lodh, J. - Heard Mr. A. Bhaumik, learned counsel appearing for writ-appellant. Also heard Mr D. Sarma, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the State-respondents and Mr. B. Majumder, learned CGC appearing for the respondent No.5.

[2] Impugnment is the judgment and order dated 11.07.2019, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 50 of 2019, titled as Sri Sukanta Gupta v. State of Tripura and Others.

[3] By way of filing the writ petition the petitioner had challenged the memorandum dated 16.01.2012 along with Note no.6 dated 20.01.2012 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) and also the memorandum dated 30.11.2017 along with the letter dated 25.07.2018 which has been issued for the purpose of recovery/denominate the pension. Further, the petitioner has urged this Court to allow the financial benefit in terms of the clarification no.3 issued vide memorandum dated 14.09.2009, which has been withdrawn subsequently by the Finance Department. That apart, the petitioner has urged this Court to release the pension and other retiral benefits accounting on his last pay at Rs.39,600/-(Rupees thirty nine thousand and six hundred) only and 25% of the amount credited to the General Provident Fund (GPF) inasmuch as, the remaining part has already been released to the petitioner.

[4] Upon hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on consideration of the pleadings exchanged between the parties, the learned Single Judge on 11/7/2019 in WP(C) No.50 of 2019 held as under:

'[18] Therefore, it is declared that the petitioner was not entitled to the benefit of the said increment in view of the memorandum dated 16.01.2012. But, at the same time, the analogy as extended by the respondent No. 5, the Accountant General (A&E) Tripura, is not acceptable to this court. Their observation exudes pedantic view for existence of the rules which provide the regulation of pay. Sub Rule 1 of Rule 10 is so unambiguous that it cannot be applied in other manner, as indicated by this court. However, for dispelling any sort of confusion, it is stated that the petitioner was entitled to CAS-1after 10 years of service even if they did not generate any financial benefit but after 17 years of service petitioner was entitled to the second ACP which was granted in favour of the petitioner and similarly the petitioner was entitled to the third ACP on completion of 25 years of service in the manner as stated above. Therefore, there is no illegality in release and consumption of those ACPs as released in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, from the pay of the petitioner only that increment which was released by the office order 08.09.2010 is liable to be deducted but this court in view of State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih reported in (2014) 8 SCC 883, where the apex court has categorically stated that if any amount is released at the time of fixation of pay in favour of any employee, if such mistake is not corrected within five years from the date of such release for category of employees particularly for those who are borne in the Group-III & IV, that shall be recovered from them.

[19] In view of that the principle of law as laid by the apex court, the respondents are directed not to recover any amount from the petitioner the amount that has been received by him in excess for release of one increment. However, the respondents are given liberty to determine the last pay in view of the observation made hereinabove within a period of two months from the day when a copy of this order shall be placed by the petitioner and release all other retiral benefits within three months there from without fail.

Hence, this writ petition stands partly allowed to the extent as indicated above.

There shall be no orde