Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 444 (CAL)

Pratap Chandra Sinha v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

2013-07-12

DEBASISH KAR GUPTA

body2013
Judgment : This writ application is directed against recovery of overdrawal amount of Rs.94,128/-from the terminal benefits of the petitioner arising out of his service as an Assistant Teacher of Baragram B.B.P.R. High School, Post Office- Baragram, District- Purulia. The petitioner joined in the aforesaid service in the month of October, 1961. The petitioner retired from the above service on attaining the age of retirement on superannuation on June 30, 1996. In course of verification of the documents and papers relating to the aforesaid service of the petitioner, it was detected by the competent authority that the petitioner had reached his age of retirement on superannuation on October 31, 1994. But he continued to work upto June, 1996. The Managing Committee of the above school adopted a resolution in its meeting dated April 25, 1997 observing that document relating to the date of birth of the petitioner was written in Hindi script and as a result of which the Managing Committee of the school under reference committed an error in calculating his age. Consequent thereupon the petitioner had worked upto the age of 62 years instead of working till attaining the age of 60 years. Thereafter, the respondent-authority released his terminal benefits issuing pension payment order under Memo No.6823/S dated March 31, 2002. By virtue of the above pension payment order, the pension of the petitioner was released w.e.f. November 1, 1994 and an amount of Rs.94,128/- was recovered towards overdrawal by the petitioner for the period from November 1, 1994 to June 1996. According to the petitioner, he had forgotten his date of birth and for that reason, he could not inform the respondent-authority of the error committed in working after attaining the age of 60 years. It is submitted by Mr. Kamalesh Bhattacharya, learned Additional Government Pleader, High Court, Calcutta that the explanation given on behalf of the petitioner for working after attaining the age of 60 years is not acceptable. One cannot forget his date of birth. It is also submitted by Mr. Bhattacharya that an attempt is made in the writ application to obtain relief misleading the Court. Drawing the attention of this Court towards the statements made in Paragraph 3 of this writ application, it is submitted that the date of retirement has been stated as October 31, 1994 therein. It is also submitted by Mr. Bhattacharya that an attempt is made in the writ application to obtain relief misleading the Court. Drawing the attention of this Court towards the statements made in Paragraph 3 of this writ application, it is submitted that the date of retirement has been stated as October 31, 1994 therein. According to him, a case is made out for recovery of an amount of Rs.94,128/-from the terminal benefits of the petitioner on the ground of excess payment for working till October 31, 1994. But the recovery was made by the respondent-authority for recovery of the payment made to the petitioner for working beyond the age of 60 years, i.e., from November 1, 1994 to June 30, 1996. Having heard the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties as also after considering the case made out in the writ application, I find that the petitioner’s case is of alleged illegal action on the part of the respondent-authority for recovery of the aforesaid amount from the payment made to the petitioner for working till October 31, 1994, i.e., the date of his attaining the age of retirement on superannuation (at Paragraph 3 of Page 5 of the writ application). After considering the facts and circumstances of this case on the basis of materials-on-record, I find that only that amount was recovered from the terminal benefits of the petitioner which had been paid to him for working beyond the age of attaining the date of retirement on superannuation, i.e., for the period from November 1, 1994 to June 30, 1996. And the pensionary benefit was extended to the petitioner w.e.f. November 1, 1994, i.e., from the actual date of his attaining the age of retirement on superannuation at 60 years of age. Therefore, there was no illegality or impropriety on the part of the respondent-authority in calculating the terminal benefits of the petitioner and in paying the same on the basis of the pension payment order issued under Memo No.6823/S dated March 31, 2002. In view of the above, the writ application is dismissed. 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.