SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Manipur) 236

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL
SANJAY KUMAR, CJ., A. BIMOL SINGH, J.
The Principal Accountant General (A. & E.), Manipur - Appellant
Versus
Smt. Kangabam Tomba Devi, W/o. (L.) Thounaojam Suren Singh and Ors. - Respondents
W.A. No. 121 of 2022 with MC(WA) No.201 of 2022 and W.A. No. 126 of 2022 with MC(WA) No.206 of 2022
Decided On : 16-12-2022

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Mr. Samarjit S., Sr. PCCG, Ms. Ch.Sundari Devi, Govt. Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. Ch. Robinchandra, Adv.

Headnote:(A) MCS (Pension) Rules, 1977 - Recovery of overpayment - The court held that deductions of Rs.3,11,847/- from retirement benefits were illegal, as they were made without due process and violated principles of natural justice. The employee had not been notified properly, nor given a chance to contest the deductions. (Paras 9, 13, 14)

(B) Consent for deduction - The court found that the employee's consent for deduction was obtained under duress as she was on the verge of retirement and had no bargaining power; thus, it did not validate the wrongful recovery. (Paras 12, 14)

(C) Delay & Laches - The principle established that illegal actions do not mature over time, and claims against void actions can be raised without the constraint of delay. (Paras 10, 14)

Facts of the case:
The writ petitioner was deducted amounts from her retirement benefits, which were later contested as being illegal on various grounds, including the cancelation of the order granting the salary scale upon which the deductions were based.

Findings of Court:
The learned Judge found that the actions taken by the authorities regarding the deductions were void from inception, and ruled against the deductions.

Issues: Key issues included whether the deductions were legally valid and if the employee's consent for the deductions constituted valid ground for the actions taken against her.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that legal grounds and proper process were essential for deductions from retirement benefits, and that consent obtained under pressure does not equate to valid legal authority.

Result: Writ appeals dismissed.

Table of Content
1. challenge to previous judgment regarding benefit deductions. (Para 1 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. arguments on legality of deductions and prior approvals. (Para 6 , 7 , 8)
3. court's analysis on legality and implications of deductions. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
4. supreme court's guidance on employer recovery practices. (Para 15)
5. dismissal of appeals due to lack of merit. (Para 16)

JUDGMENT :

(Sanjay Kumar, CJ.) :

[1] Judgment and Order dated 13.07.2022 passed by a learned Judge of this Court in W.P(C) No.574 of 2021 is subjected to challenge in these two appeals. Writ Appeal No.121 of 2022 was filed by the Principal Accountant General (A & E), Manipur, respondent No.1 in the said writ petition; while Writ Appeal No.126 of 2022 was filed by the State of Manipur and the Director, Education (S), Government of Manipur, respondents No. 2 and 3 in the said writ petition. By the judgment and order under appeal, the learned Judge allowed the writ petition and directed the authorities to refund the deducted Gratuity and Dearness Relief, amounting to Rs.3,11,847/-, to the writ petitioner within a time frame. This relief was granted on the ground that the deductions made from her Gratuity and Dearness Relief accounts were illegal and unsustainable in law.

[2] Heard Mr. Samarjit S., learned Sr. PCCG, appearing for the appellant in WA No.121 of 2022; Ms. Ch.Sundari Devi, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the appellants in WA No.126 of 2022; and Mr. Ch.Robinchandra Singh, learned counsel for respondent No.1 in both the writ appeals, the writ petitioner.

[3] Smt. Kangabam Tomba Devi, respondent No.1 herein, was appointed as a Primary/Matriculate Teacher, vide order dated 15.06.1983 of the Director of Education (S), Government of Manipur. Therein, her salary was fixed in the scale of pay of Rs.470-15-575-EB-20-735-25-860/-per month, plus DA and other allowances admissible under the rules, with effect from 01.07.1983. Upon acquiring a higher qualification, her salary was increased by the Director of Education (S), Government of Manipur, vide order dated 05.03.1992. Thereby, she was placed in the scale of pay of Rs.575-1050/-(pre-revised) with retrospective effect from 01.07.1983. Again, by order dated 08.11.2002, the Director of Education (S), Government of Manipur, enhanced her scale of pay, pursuant to Government Notification dated 07.09.1999, and she was extended the Trained Graduate/Trained Primary Teacher scale of pay with effect from 07.09.1999. Her scale of pay at this stage was fixed as Rs.4500-7000/-. She was then given the enhanced Trained Senior scale upon completion of 12 years of regular service in the grade, vide order dated 17.11.2003 of the Director of Education (S), Government of Manipur. Her scale of pay was fixed as Rs.5000-8000/-with effect from 29.10.1999. The scale of pay of Rs.5000-8000/-was revised to Rs.9300-34,800/-plus grade pay of Rs.4200/-with effect from 01.01.2006, vide Notification dated 05.05.2010 of the Government of Manipur and her pay was fixed at Rs.11,540/-plus Rs.4200/-GP per month with effect from 01.01.2006.

[4] It may be noted that at the time the writ petitioner entered service, she was still an undergraduate being in B.A. 1st year. Thereafter, she acquired higher educational qualification and was granted higher scale of pay basing on her qualification. She attained the age of superannuation and retired from service with effect from 30.06.2010. Order dated 23.09.2010 was issued by the Director of Education (S), Government of Manipur, in recognition of this fact. The office of the Senior Deputy Accountant General (A & E), Manipur, issued a Pension Payment Order stating that she would be entitled to receive Rs.6600/-per month as pension with effect from 01.07.2010. Therein, under the caption ‘Special Remarks of Accounts Officer’, it was noted that her Gratuity amount stood at Rs.2,40,570/-but recovery of overpayment of pay and allowances to the tune of Rs.3,11,847/-had to be effect

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top