Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 183 (GAU)

Susama Acharjee v. State of Tripura

2000-05-17

M.L.SINGHAL

body2000
Heard Mr. SM Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. S. Das, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioner Smti Susama Acharjee was appointed as Class IV employee on compassionate ground on, 31.1.1969 after the death of her husband. On 26th July, 1999 (vide Annexure 2) she was served a notice that her superannuation falls on 31st December 1999. Subsequently, after the period of 13 days by order dated 9th August, 1999 (vide Annexure 3) she was informed that the date of her superannuation falls on 31st December 1997. Subsequently, by the impugned order dated 27th September, 1999 the respondent, Principal of the Women's College where the petitioner was employed has directed that the salary paid to the petitioner during the period from 1st January, 1998 to 9th August 1999, during which she worked after superannuation be recovered from the gratuity and pensioners benefits of the petitioner. The petitioner has grievance against the said order. 3. The defence is that initially the petitioner was employed a Cook, Class IV employee, subsequently the post of Cook on which the petitioner was appointed in the ROP Rules, 1998 was raised to a status of Class III employee. As per rules, a Class III employee retires from Govt service after attaining the age of 58 years. The petitioner's date of birth is on 1st January, 1940 and, as such, she retired from service from 30th December 1997. From 1st January 1998 to 9th August 1999 the petitioner rendered service without approval of the competent authority and, as such, she is not entitled to salary for the period 1.1.1998 to 9.8.1999. The order for deduction for the salary paid during the said period from the petitioner's pensioners benefits is justified. 4. As seen above, in the first instance on 26th July, 1999 the respondent Principal of Women's College, Agartala informed the petitioner that she was to retire on 31st December 1999. The petitioner was allowed to render service by the respondents themselves. If the respondents themselves allowed the petitioner to render service and the respondents have taken services from the petitioner, it is not just and proper to recover the payment of salary made to the petitioner during the said period from the pensioners benefits of the petitioner. The petitioner cannot be put to blame for the same. If the respondents themselves allowed the petitioner to render service and the respondents have taken services from the petitioner, it is not just and proper to recover the payment of salary made to the petitioner during the said period from the pensioners benefits of the petitioner. The petitioner cannot be put to blame for the same. In Shyam Babu Verma & others vs. Union of India & others, (1994) 2 SCC 521 , where the petitioners had been paid higher pay scale erroneously due to no fault of theirs, the Supreme Court observed that it shall only be just and proper not to recover any excess amount already paid to them. 5. In the result, the writ petition succeeds. The impugned Memo dated 27th September 1999 (Annexure 4) is hereby quashed. The respondents are hereby directed not to recover salary paid to the petitioner during the period from 1.1.1998 to 9.8.1999 from the pensionary benefits of the petitioner. Costs on parties.