Galuram Baskey v. State Of West Bengal And ORS.

W.P.A. 18466 of 2021 (via video conference) Galuram Baskey VS The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Mr. Sourav Mitra Ms. Sreyasree Choudhury ...... for the petitioner The petitioner was a Head Teacher of a primary Court No. 24 27.01.2022 (Item No. 23) (AB) school. He retired from service on 31.05.2019. The Pension Payment Order in his favour was issued by the respondent authorities on 20.08.2021. An amount of Rs.74,851/- was directed to be refunded on account of alleged overdrawal due to wrong fixation by the order of the Secretary, Paschim Midnapur, D.P.S.C. vide memo dated 18.08.2020. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present writ petition.

None appears on behalf of the State.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner 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 Punjab -vs.- 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. -vs- Govt. 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 direction to refund the sum of Rs. 74,851/- was illegal.

Moreover, the petitioner was enjoying the aforesaid amount for more than five years prior to the intimation to refund the same, that too, long after his retirement. The same is impermissible.

The concerned Treasury Officer is directed to refund the amount of Rs.74,851/- to the petitioner along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum with effect from the date of depositing the aforesaid amount by way of treasury challan till the date of actual payment. Such payment is to be made to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of this order. Since no affidavit-in-opposition has been invited, the allegations contained in the writ petition are deemed not to be admitted.

The writ petition stands disposed of.

There will, however, be no order as to costs. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties, if applied for, as early as possible. (Amrita Sinha, J.)