Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 441 (CAL)

Bhola Nath Roy v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

2013-07-12

DEBASISH KAR GUPTA

body2013
Judgment : This writ application is directed against an order passed by the respondent No.2 under his Memo No.1318-GA dated June 8, 2012. By virtue of the impugned order, the respondent No.2 directed the respondent No.7 to recover alleged overdrawal amount from the terminal benefits of the petitioner who was an Assistant Teacher of Sukdevpur S.C. High School, District – Dakshin Dinajpur. The appointment of the petitioner to the post of an Assistant Teacher, Sukdevpur S.C. High School was approved by the respondent No.7 w.e.f. February 25, 1987 under Memo No.386/1(1)/A dated February 21, 1991 recording his academic qualification of B.Sc(D), B.Ed. The respondent No.7 informed the authority of the above school of the error in extending the benefit of revision of pay and allowances, 1998 in favour of the petitioner under his Memo No.46/Gr. dated January 10, 2000. The petitioner refunded back the excess amount drawn by him in the treasury on May 26, 2000 (at Page 27 of this writ application). Subsequently, the respondent No.7 extended the benefit of higher scale of pay in favour of the petitioner fixing his pay in the next higher scale of pay allowing the benefit of his 18 years service on completion of continuous satisfactory service under Memo No.537/1(2) dated March 21, 2003. The above benefit was extended in favour of the petitioner in terms of the G.O. No.33-Edn (B) dated March 7, 1990 read with Circular No.25-SE (B) dated February 12, 1999. Before retirement of the petitioner from the above service on attaining the age of retirement on superannuation, the respondent No.6 communicated the audit observations in respect of pension case of the petitioner to the respondent No.7 to the effect that in accordance with G.O. No.324-SE (B)/I –M-68/2000 dated May 22, 2002, the financial benefit for ‘Distinction Marks’ might be allowed to the petitioner w.e.f. May 23, 2002 and consequent thereupon request was made to take necessary steps in the matter. The petitioner retired from the above service on attaining the age of retirement on superannuation w.e.f. September 30, 2012. Due to the audit observation under reference, the terminal benefits of the petitioner have not yet been released. The petitioner retired from the above service on attaining the age of retirement on superannuation w.e.f. September 30, 2012. Due to the audit observation under reference, the terminal benefits of the petitioner have not yet been released. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties at length and I have considered the facts and circumstances of this case carefully, it is an admitted fact that the excess amount paid to the petitioner in connection with revision of pay and allowance, 1998 was not calculated in terms of G.O. No.25-SE (B) dated February 12, 1999. But, upon detection of such error, the petitioner refunded the aforesaid excess payment in the treasury as back as on May 26, 2000. In view of the above, the allegation of enjoying the aforesaid benefit does not arise. It is further revealed from the impugned order that the ground for audit objection is non-consideration of provision of G.O. No.324/SE (B)/I-M-68/2000 dated May 22, 2002 at the time of extending the benefit of two increments for obtaining distinction marks in respect of the graduation degree of the petitioner. The aforesaid Government Order came into force on May 22, 2002, it had no retrospective effect. The benefit of two increments was allowed to the petitioner prior to the introduction of the above Government Order. Therefore, the above benefit should not be withdrawn taking recourse to a Government Order which was not in force at the time of extending the above benefit to the petitioner. The impugned order, therefore, cannot be sustained in law and the same is quashed and set aside. The respondent-authority is directed to release the terminal benefits to the petitioner fixing the same in the light of the observations made hereinabove together with interest @ 9 per cent per annum on arrear payment for the period from which the same was due and payable till the date of its actual payment within two months from the date of communication of this order. It is made clear that the rate of interest on arrear payment is fixed @ 9 per cent per annum taking into consideration the highest prevailing rate of interest payable on fixed deposit by a nationalised bank. This writ application is disposed of accordingly. There will be, however, no order as to costs. It is made clear that the rate of interest on arrear payment is fixed @ 9 per cent per annum taking into consideration the highest prevailing rate of interest payable on fixed deposit by a nationalised bank. This writ application is disposed of accordingly. There will be, however, no order as to costs. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be given to the parties, as expeditiously as possible, upon compliance with the necessary formalities in this regard.