Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Guina Prasad Ghosh vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 5 May, 2011
Author: Jyotirmay Bhattacharya
Bench: Jyotirmay Bhattacharya
1
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
Appellate Side
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Jyotirmay Bhattacharya
W. P. No. 6086 (W) of 2011
GUINA PRASAD GHOSH
Versus
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sourav Mitra
For the State : Ms. Jhumur Chakraborty
Judgment On : May 5, 2011.
The petitioner who was an Assistant Teacher of Dhumsai S.C. High School in the District
of Paschim Medinipur, retired from service on superannuation on 30th March, 1996. Long after
his retirement pension payment order was issued in favour of the petitioner on 9th June, 1999
wherefrom it appears that a sum of Rs.11,964/- was deducted from his dearth-cum-retiring
gratuity. The said amount of Rs.11,964/- was deducted from the retiral benefits of the petitioner
as the said sum of Rs.11,964/-, according to the concerned respondent, was paid to the
petitioner in excess of his entitlement during the tenure of his service due to his wrong pay fixation.
It has already been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shyambabu Verma vs. Union of India; reported in (1994) 2 SCC 521, that such 2 overdrawal in pay due to wrong pay fixation cannot be adjusted and/or realised from the retiral benefits of a retired person after his retirement provided, however, the employee had no role to play in the process of wrong re-fixation of his pay.
Here is the case where it is not alleged by the State Government that the petitioner was responsible for his erroneous pay fixation and as such this Court holds that even if any payment was made to the petitioner in excess of his entitlement due to wrong pay fixation by the concerned authority during the tenure of his service, such excess payment can not be realised from the retiral benefits of the retired person after his retirement. As such this Court holds that the petitioner is entitled to get back the deducted amount of Rs.11,964/- which was unauthorisedly recovered from him by the state respondent from the retiral benefits of the petitioner.
This Court also finds that there was enormous delay in payment of the retiral benefit of the petitioner. His death-cum-retiral gratuity was paid to him in November 2007 in terms of the revised pension payment order, issued on 13th November, 2007, though he retired from service on 30th March, 1996.
The State respondents are thus, directed to refund the said sum of Rs.11,964/- which was illegally deducted from the retiral benefits of the petitioner together interest @ 10% per annum over delayed payment of gratuity from the date of his retirement upto the date of actual payment thereof. 3
The concerned authority is also directed to recalculate the retiral benefit and/or the pensionary benefits of the petitioner on the basis of his last drawn salary and pay the petitioner his admissible dues as per such calculation within eight weeks from the date of communication of the order. In the event the entire payment, as aforesaid, is made to the petitioner within the time as aforesaid, the respondents are not required to pay any interest to the petitioner, but in default of such payment within the time as aforesaid, the respondents are required to pay interest @ 8% per annum on delayed payment of such admissible dues of the petitioner from the date of his retirement up-to the date of actual payment thereof.
The entire exercise in this regard should be completed by the state respondents positively within a period of 8 weeks from the date of communication of this order.
The writ petition is, thus, disposed of.
Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties as expeditiously as possible.
(Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J.)