Ram Chandra Khatua v. State Of West Bengal And ORS.

26.07.2022 Court No. 13 SL No. 476 sp In The High Court At Calcutta Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Appellate Side WPA 11826 of 2022 Ram Chandra Khatua Vs The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Mr. Subhrangsu Panda, Ms. Ina Bhattacharya ... for the petitioner .

The petitioner retired as a teacher of a school on attaining his age of superannuation on 30.11.2021.

The retiral dues of the petitioner was not released in his favour allegedly on the ground that there was an overdrawal amount of Rs.

5,76,013/- and same has been deducted from the retirement benefits of the petitioner after his retirement.

The petitioner prays for refund of the said amount as the direction to refund any amount, allegedly overdrawn, from a retired employee is bad in law.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the orders passed by

the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court on similar facts.

Following the principles laid down in the case of Shyam Babu Verma-vs.-Union of India, (1994) 3 SCC 521, Syed Abdul Qadir -vs.- State of Bihar, (2009) 3 SCC 475 and State of Punjabvs.-Rafiq Masih, (2014) 8 SCC 883, (2015) 4 SCC 334, Chandi Prasad Uniyal-vs.-State of Uttarakhand, (2012) 8 SCC 417, Syed Abdul Qadir (supra) and in Col. B. J. Akkaravs. -vsGovt. of India, (2006) 11 SCC 709, Civil Appeal No. 3500 of 2006 (High Court of Punjab & Haryana-vs.-Jagdev Singh) and the judgment delivered by Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Asitosh Bhattacharya vs. The State of West Bengal (2015)2 CLT 339 in my considered opinion no recovery could be made from the retiral benefits of the petitioner as there was no misrepresentation and/or fraud nor was the petitioner conscious that he was receiving more than what he was entitled to and accordingly directing to refund the sum of Rs. 5,76,013/- was illegal.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down that recovery from employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV service (or Group 'C' and

Group 'D'

service), recovery from retired employees, or employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery and recovery from employees, when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery is issued, is impermissible.

In the present case, the petitioner is a Group-C employee who alleged received the excess amount for than five years prior to passing the order for refund and the direction to refund was issued after the petitioner retired from service. The same is impermissible in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

The concerned Treasury Officer is accordingly directed to refund the amount of Rs. 5,76,013/- to the petitioner along with interest at the rate of 5% per annum with effect from the date of issuance of PPO. Such payment is to be made to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of this order.

The respondent authorities are directed to fix the scale of pay of the petitioner strictly in accordance with law and make payment of his

terminal benefits in accordance with his proper scale of pay.

The writ petition stands disposed of.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties, if applied for, as early as possible.

(Rajasekhar Mantha, J.)