22.04.2025.

PB Sl. No.269.

Ct. No.25.

WPA 7522 of 2009 Minati Sarkar Vs.

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Mr. Sk. Imtiaj Uddin. … For the Petitioner. Mr. Satyajit Talukdar.

… For the State.

1. The writ petitioner is an Assistant Teacher, who has retired from service on and from November 1, 2005.

2. After her retirement and starting from the date August 17, 2006, that is, near about after one year from the date of retirement of the petitioner, the Director, Pension, Provident Fund and Group Insurance, Government of West Bengal has started raising various objections regarding issuance of pension to the petitioner. Ultimately, as per direction of the said respondent, the petitioner had to submit with the department an amount of Rs.1,14,355/-, alleged to be the overdrawn amount of salary earlier paid to the writ petitioner. Allegedly, the writ petitioner has been granted pension at a reduced rate than she is entitled to.

3. Mr. Imtiaj Uddin, learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that post-retiral deduction of the salary or subjecting the writ petitioner to the reduced scale of pension are the steps taken by the said respondent beyond the scope and purview of law existing and governing the field. He would say that the petitioner having been uninterruptedly serving the school and being paid due salary till last, should be granted with the pension at the rate of her last drawn salary. Instead, it is alleged, that the petitioner has been wrongfully subjected to reduced scale of pension. 4. Furthermore, it is submitted that the alleged amount which the petitioner was forced to deposit being overdrawn salary, should be immediately refunded back to the writ petitioner. In this regard, Mr. Imtiaj Uddin has relied on an earlier decision of this Court dated April 18, 2024, being WPA 6729 of 2020 (Sucheta Muhuri Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.), in which the Court after relying a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Rafiq Masih reported in (2015) 9 SCC 334, has held that the amount recovered as the overdrawn of salary after retirement of the concerned teacher, should be refunded back to him.

5. Mr. Imtiaj Uddin, learned advocate for the petitioner has sought that the present writ petition may be allowed, by granting the writ petitioner, similar relief.

6. Mr. Talukdar, learned advocate has represented the State respondent.

7. Mr. Talukdar has relied on a report of the District Inspector of Schools (SE), Barrackpore, North 24 Parganas dated February 19, 2025. On the basis of the same, he has submitted that firstly, the pension file of the writ petitioner is not traceable at present being an old case file. Secondly, he has stated that though initially objections were raised by the Director, Pension, Provident Fund and Group Insurance, Government of West Bengal, however, at the later stage, payment order has been on May 7, 2009, and she is being granted pension at present.

8. The reporting authority has stated in the said report that an amount of Rs.1,14,335/- has been adjusted being overdrawn amount of salary of the petitioner. The report, as above, is taken on record.

9. Undeniably, in this case, after about one year from the date of retirement of the writ petitioner, that is, November 1, 2005, the respondent authority has raised various objections while granting pension to her.

10. Record reveals that by dint of her letter dated January 25, 2007, the Headmistress of the school has complied with the query of the concerned respondent, which were the points of objection raised by it.

11. Be that as it may, at a subsequent date, the petitioner has been subjected to submission of the alleged overdrawn amount of salary to the tune of Rs.1,14,355/-, which she has submitted to ensure immediate release of pension in her favour. It is also an admitted fact in this case that the writ petitioner has been granted pension as per the Pension Payment Order issued in her favour, which amounts to not at the rate her last drawn