Deductions from retiral benefits without due process are illegal; recovery must comply with statutory timelines and procedural fairness.

PER MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS, MEMBER (J):

The late husband of the original applicant, was Accounts Assistant under the Workshop Accounts Officer, New Bongaigaon, N.F. Railway. During his service, based on Annexure-A/6 recommendations of the Screening Committee for recommending the entitlement of employees for financial upgradation dated 10.06.2009, Annexure-A/7 was issued by the Respondents dated 10.01.2011 granting the second and third MACP to the applicant and the next higher Grade Pay of Rs. 4600/- and Rs. 4800/- respectively w.e.f. 01.09.2008 and 06.01.2009. Annexure-A/8 consequential pay fixation was issued. While the applicant was enjoying the benefits, he was superannuated from his services on 30.09.2018 on completion of age of superannuation. Thereafter, he expired on 23.10.2018. After the death of the husband of the applicant, the retiral benefits were disbursed to the widow of the applicant. On finding that a sum of Rs. 1,79,517/- was deducted from the retiral benefits due to the husband, the applicant submitted a representation. She was informed by Annexure-A/10 Communication dated 17.06.2020 that certain deductions were made under the various headings stated therein, including the financial benefits granted to him under the 03rd MACP during the period from 06.01.2009 to 31.07.2016, was erroneous. The table of the deductions under various heads, is mentioned in Anexure-A10. 2. Challenging it and contending that by virtue of MACP Scheme as detailed in Annexure-A/5, the Committee has rightly granted the benefits, and, therefore, the alleged illegal deduction on ground of erroneous payment of 03rd financial benefit is wrong, this O.A. has been filed. Even if the deduction was wrongly made, it was claimed that the applicant is entitled to the benefit of decision reported in State of Punjab & Ors. Vs Rafiq Masih and Anr. (2015) 4 SSC 334 and the consequential O.M. issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, Department of Personnel & Training dated 02 March 2016.

3. Written statement has been filed by the respondents contending that on finding that there was a mistake in granting of the financial benefits, deduction was effected. It was further contended that the recoveries were made strictly in accordance with law.

4. Rejoinder has been filed in reply to it and reiterating the contentions of the O.A.

5. Heard both the sides and examined the records.

6. Essentially, the learned counsel for the applicant invited our attention to the MACP Scheme as detailed in Annexure- A/5 to establish that the contention set up by the respondents that MACP was wrongly granted, was not justified on the basis of said Annexure-A/5. However, we are not inclined to go into the question whether the benefit granted was right or wrong, since the thrust of the argument of applicant was that recovery was bad in law. Hence, we narrow down to that point, which is advanced in the O.A. Essentially, though we find from written statement that there was some internal communication between the respondents that financial benefits have been granted wrongly, no action was taken pursuant to it. The husband of the applicant was never issued with any notice calling upon him as to why deduction shall be made from his salary on a premise that there was wrong granting of MACP. We find that behind his back, a decision has been passed and a deduction has been effected unilaterally from the benefits due to the applicant. At the time of his retirement, deductions have been effected. We find from Annexure-A/10 that the various deductions at Serial No. 1 to 4 relate to