IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL
M.V. Muralidaran, J.
Kangabam Tomba Devi - Appellant
Versus
Principal Accountant General (A&E) & Ors. - Respondents
WP(C) No. 574 of 2021
Decided On : 13-07-2022
Mandamus - Gratuity Refund - MCS (Pension) Rules, 1977, Rule 71(2) and 73(3), Government Order dated 16.8.2016 - The court directed the respondents to refund the gratuity amount and the dearness relief amount of Rs.3,11,847/- to the petitioner. The court found that the petitioner was entitled to the full gratuity amount and the dearness relief amount as the grant of qualification scale, trained scale, and senior scale were made prior to 2005 and the recovery should not be made from the retired employees.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to refund the gratuity amount and the dearness relief amount of Rs.3,11,847/-, which had been deducted from her retirement gratuity account and dearness relief account.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was entitled to the full gratuity amount and the dearness relief amount as the grant of qualification scale, trained scale, and senior scale were made prior to 2005 and the recovery should not be made from the retired employees.
Issues: The main issue was whether the respondents were liable to refund the amount of Rs.3,11,847/- wrongly deducted from the gratuity amount and the dearness relief account of the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the recovery should not be made from the retired employees and that the grant of qualification scale, trained scale, and senior scale to the petitioner cannot be questioned and found fault by the respondent authorities at this distant point of time.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and directed the respondent authorities to refund the gratuity amount and the dearness relief amount of Rs.3,11,847/- to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the order.
JUDGMENT
1. Heard Mr. Ch. Robinchandra, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. S. Jasobanta, learned counsel for the first respondent and Mrs. Ch. Sundari, learned Government Advocate for the respondents 2 to 4.
2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to refund the gratuity amount and the dearness relief amount of Rs.3,11,847/- to her which amount had been deducted from the retirement gratuity account and dearness relief account of the petitioner.
3. Mr. Ch. Robinchandra, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner retired from service on her attaining the age of superannuation with effect from 30.6.2010 and on the retirement, the first respondent issued pension book dated 1.7.2010 bearing PPP No.SM/29940 as Part-I to the petitioner and Part-III of the book forwarded to the fourth respondent with instruction to deduct a sum of Rs.3,11,847/- from her gratuity account and dearness relief account and, accordingly, the said sum was deducted.
4. The learned counsel further submitted that the State Government had granted the higher scale i.e. qualification scale, trained scale of her passing the Basic Training Examination, Senior Trained Scale of her length of service and also granted the revised pay scale under ROP, 2010. He would submit that on 24.6.2017, the Principal Secretary, Education(S) issued an order stating that the State Cabinet on 28.4.2017 decided to review and withdraw the decision of the Cabinet taken on 20.8.2016 to cancel the grant of qualification scale and, accordingly, the Governor of Manipur by issuing an order withdrawing the Government Order dated 6.9.2016 cancelling the grant of scale of higher post i.e. qualification scale. In view of the above, the petitioner is entitled to enjoy full gratuity amount and the dearness relief amount.
5. The learned counsel next submitted that on 11.10.2019, the petitioner submitted a representation to refund the amount of Rs.3,11,847/- which amount was deducted by the respondents as excess payment/overpayment from her retirement gratuity and dearness relief account. Despite receipt of the said representation, the respondent authorities failed to consider the request of the petitioner till date.
6. The learned counsel urged that the act of the respondent authorities to deny to refund the amount of Rs.3,11,847/- to the petitioner is illegal and arbitrary to the extent that they have deprived the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India. Thus, a prayer is made to direct the respondent authorities to refund the amount of Rs.3,11,847/- to the petitioner.
7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that by the order dated 27.10.2018 passed in Contempt Case (C) No.65 of 2016 this Court directed that those teachers who were appointed as Matriculate teachers are not entitled to automatically enjoy higher pay/qualification scale of pay even though the concerned teachers had acquired higher qualification and those teachers who were given higher scale without following due norms and procedure shall be allowed pension as per their substantive post as per the relevant RRS and ROPs. Accordingly, the Principal Secretary, Education(S) was requested to furnish specific order to enable the first respondent to process the retirement benefit cases of retired pensioner/family pensioner as per the direction of the Court dated 27.10.2018.
8. The learned counsel further submitted that by letter dated 6.6.2019, the Principal Secretary conveyed to settle the retirement benefit cases of the retired pensioner/family pensioners as per the Government Order dated 16.8.2016 and that while submitting pension papers of the petitioner, a consent/self-declaration duly signed by her declaring that she hereby give her consent to the recovery of any kind of overpayment standing dues from the pension and gratuity admissible to her, duly countersigned by the Zonal Education Officer, Zo
Recovery should not be made from the retired employees, and the grant of qualification scale, trained scale, and senior scale to the petitioner cannot be questioned and found fault by the respondent ....
Recovery of excess payments from employees is impermissible when no fault or misrepresentation is established on their part.
The main legal point established is that financial benefits given without misrepresentation or fraud are not liable to be recovered, and any order passed in violation of the principles of natural jus....
The court established that qualifications obtained before a specified date must be recognized for pay scale determination, ensuring fairness in employment practices.
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.