Sabita Pal v. The State Of West Bengal And ORS.

21.04.2025 d.p.

Calcutta High Court In the Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri Appellate Jurisdiction W.P.A. 753 of 2025 Sabita Pal -versus The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Mr. Sanjoy Mazoomdar, Mr. Anirban Chakraborty.

...For the Petitioner.

Mr. Sumit Kumar, Mr. Saurav Sarkar.

...For the State.

1.

The husband of the petitioner was a High School Teacher. He died-in-harness on 02.05.2014. The Pension Payment Order was issued by the respondent Authorities on 19.07.2016. An amount of Rs.5,20,020/- was deducted on account of alleged overdrawal. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present writ petition.

2.

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. 3.

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, 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 her deceased husband was receiving more than what he was entitled to and accordingly deducting the sum of Rs. 5,20,020/- on account of overdrawal was illegal. 4.

In view of the decision laid down in the case of Union of India vs. Tarsem Singh (2008)3 SCC 648 the relief prayed for by the petitioner may be granted in spite of the delay in approaching the writ Court as it did not affect the right of third parties.

5.

The concerned Treasury Officer is directed to release the amount of Rs. 5,20,020/- to the petitioner along with interest at the rate of 5% per annum with effect from the date of issuance of PPO 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.

6.

Since no affidavit-in-opposition has been invited, the allegations contained in the writ petition are deemed not to be admitted.

7.

The writ petition stands disposed of.

8.

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

( Amrita Sinha, J.)