Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Rabindra Kumar Bhattacharjee vs The State Of West Bengal And Others on 10 April, 2017
1
S/L. 26.
April 10, 2017.
MNS
W. P. No. 8988(w) of 2017
Rabindra Kumar Bhattacharjee
Vs.
The State of West Bengal and others
Mr. Satyaranjan Kundu
...for the petitioner.
Mr. Gausul Alam
...for the State-respondents.
Affidavit-of-service filed in Court today is taken on record.
With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties the writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the State-respondents. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for a direction upon the concerned respondent authorities to refund the deducted amount of Rs. 12,906/- with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of retirement till the date of actual payment.
The petitioner's case in short is that the petitioner was an approved Assistant Teacher in the concerned school. The petitioner retired from service on October 31, 2006.
The grievance of the petitioner is that the pensionary benefits of the petitioner including gratuity amount were withheld for the reason the petitioner had drawn excess amount due to wrong fixation of his pay scale during his service tenure and the concerned District inspector of Schools (S. E.), reduced the petitioner's pay drawn at the time of retirement and calculated the overdrawal amount of Rs. 12,906/-. Thereafter, the Pension Payment Order was issued by the concerned respondent wherefrom it reveals that the authority had deducted the amount of Rs. 12,906/- from his gratuity but before such deduction no opportunity of hearing as well as notice was given to the petitioner for refund.
Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, in my considered view that the aforesaid deduction of the overdrawn amount of Rs. 12,906/- from the gratuity amount of the petitioner after retirement cannot be approved by this Court. As such, the said deduction is not sustainable under the law, since no opportunity was given to the petitioner or fresh notice was not served upon the petitioner for conducting any inquiry before deducting the overdrawal amount, as such the respondent authorities had suo motu decided to deduct the said amount is in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India as the petitioner had completed his service without any adverse remark.
2Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the action of the respondent for deducting a sum of Rs. 12,906/- from Death-Cum-Retiring Gratuity amount without any order be paid to the petitioner. The deduction of the overdrawn amount is a final order of the respondent authorities, therefore, an enquiry is necessary after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner by serving a fresh notice but no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before the deduction by the respondent authorities.
Accordingly, this Court directs the concerned respondents, particularly, the concerned respondents to pay the deducted amount of Rs. 12,906/- to the petitioner with prevalent bank rate interest within a period of three months from the date of furnishing certified copy of this order after verification of the relevant documents and the interest will be carried out with effect from the date of deduction of the said amount till the date of refund.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.
I make no order as to costs.
The Registry is directed to supply photostat certified copy of this order to the applicant, if applied for, on urgent basis.
(Rajiv Sharma, J.)