Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Ramani Mohan Roy vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 10 June, 2010
Author: Jayanta Kumar Biswas
Bench: Jayanta Kumar Biswas
In The High Court at Calcutta
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
Appellate Side
Present : The Hon'ble Mr Justice Jayanta Kumar Biswas
W.P.No.11763(W) of 2010
Ramani Mohan Roy
-vs-
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Sakti Pada Jana ....for the petitioner
Mr. Chowdhury Faruk Ali .....for the state
Heard on : June 10, 2010
Judgment on : June 10, 2010
The Court : The petitioner in this art.226 petition dated June 7, 2010 is seeking
a mandamus commanding the respondents to refund him Rs.1,25,471 recovered from
his retirement benefits on account of overpayment.
The petitioner was a primary school teacher. He retired from service on July 31, 1992. The pension payment order was issued on December 20, 2001. In the order the recovery of the amount was recorded.
The petitioner received the benefits in terms of the pension payment order without any protest. He did not demand refund of the recovered amount. As a matter of fact, he did not take any step whatsoever until all of a sudden he filed this petition.
With a view to explaining the delay in para.15 of the petition he has stated as follows :
"15. Your petitioner states and submits that due to his prolonged illness he could not take any steps against the impugned deduction and he could not also take legal advice regarding recovery of such deductable amount."
Relying on the case stated in para.15 and a single bench decision dated September 11, 2007 in W.P.No.7387(W) of 2007 (Bhona Khan v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.), counsel for the petitioner submits that the question of delay is not relevant, since the amount was recovered without giving the petitioner any notice and hence in violation of the principles of natural justice.
I do not find any reason to agree. Even if the amount was recovered without giving the petitioner any notice, he could not approach the writ court questioning the decision of the state to recover the amount on account of overpayment, around nine years after the recovery without explaining the delay.
The case stated in para.15, not supported by any material, is of no consequence, especially because it is evidently a made to fit untrue word for word case stated in para.15 of as many as three other art.226 petitions the same advocate has filed seeking similar relief.
The three petitions are : W.P.No11765(W) of 2010 (Basudeb Halder v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.), W.P.No.11767(W) of 2010 (Kshirswari Roy v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.) and W.P.No.11769(W) of 2010 (Prafulla Chandra Saha v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.) As to the single bench decision, I do not think the ratio thereof can be applied to the case of the petitioner who by his own conduct forfeited his right, if any, to seek refund of the recovered amount. In my opinion, writ powers under art.226 of the constitution should not be exercised for adjudicating such a stale issue as the one involved in this case.
For these reasons, the petition is dismissed. No costs. Certified xerox.
(Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J) sb