Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 275 (CAL)

Pulin Behari Maity v. State Of West. Bengal

2010-03-15

J.K.BISWAS

body2010
JUDGMENT 1. THE Judgment of the Court was as follows : THE petitioner in this Article 226 petition dated November 24, 2009 is aggrieved by deduction of Rs. 22,150/- from his retirement benefits. 2. HE was a Primary School Teacher. He retired from service on July 31, 2004. In para 6 he has stated as follows : "Your petitioner states that the petitioner had been to the office of the D.I. to enquire about his pension case when he came to learn that the D.I. withheld the papers for the reasons that there was overdrawn due to wrong fixation of pay scale. The petitioner was forced to submit a declaration to recover the said overdrawal amount, otherwise, his pension papers could not be completed. Finding no other option, the petitioner had given such declaration, though he had no fault and/or misrepresentation in fixation of his pay scale." Finally, the pension payment order was issued on March 30,2006 showing the deduction on the ground that during the term of his employment he was paid salaries and allowances in excess of his entitlement. Feeling aggrieved he took out this petition. 3. THE Additional District Inspector of Schools, the third respondent, has filed an opposition dated February 16, 2010. In para 7 he has stated as follows : "With regard to the contentions made in paragraphs 9 to 12 of the save and except what are matters of record, I deny each and every allegation contained herein. I say that the over drawn amount of Rs. 22.140/- was deducted as the amount was paid in excess which was not admissible to him as per his declaration dated 13.09.2005. Xerox copy of the said declaration is annexed herewith and marked with the letter 'R-1'." 4. THE third respondent has not disputed the correctness of the petitioner's case that the petitioner was compelled to submit the consent letter dated September 13,2605. It is evident that although the petitioner retired as back as July 31,2004, the District Inspector of Schools, the pension sanctioning authority, was not inclined to sanction his pension and other benefits until he gave a consent letter empowering the District Inspector of Schools to recover the alleged overpayment. The particulars of the overpayment have not been given in the opposition. It is not the case that any overpayment took place because of any misrepresentation or fraud exercised by the petitioner. The particulars of the overpayment have not been given in the opposition. It is not the case that any overpayment took place because of any misrepresentation or fraud exercised by the petitioner. No law empowered the pension sanctioning authority to review or sit in appeal over the decision of the authority fixing the pay. Incidentally both the powers to fix pay and sanction pension are exercised by the District Inspector of Schools. 5. ON the facts, I am of the view that the respondents arbitrarily deducted the amount from the petitioner's retirement benefits. The consent letter was not a requirement of any provision of the death-cum-retirement benefit scheme. No law empowered the District Inspector of Schools to call upon the petitioner to submit such a consent letter as the one dated December 13,2005 long after his retirement from service. It is, therefore, evident that the document is the outcome of an extralegal direction. 6. I am, therefore, of the view that on the basis of the extralegal document the District Inspector of Schools could not deprive the petitioner of a part of his retirement benefits. In my opinion, the respondents are bound to refund the deducted amount with interest. For these reasons, I allow the petition and order as follows. The Director of Pension, Provident Fund and Group Insurance, West Bengal is directed to refund the sum of Rs. 22,150/- and recalculate the petitioner's pension on the basis of his pay at the date of retirement, and pay balance retirement benefits, if any; all payments shall be made with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from August 1, 2004 till the date of actual payment within four weeks from the date of communication of this order. No costs.