Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 791 (CAL)

Madan Gopal Goswami v. State of West Bengal

2016-10-04

DEBANGSU BASAK

body2016
JUDGMENT : Debangsu Basak, J. The petitioner has assailed an Order dated June 27, 2000 by which a refund has been sought from the petitioner. 2. Learned Advocate for the petitioner has submitted that, the issue of increment and promotion of the petitioner was decided by the Hon’ble Division Bench in a judgment and order dated January 11, 1996. He has submitted relying upon 1994 2 SCC 521 (Shyam Babu Verma v. Union of India) and 2015 4 SCC 334 (State of Punjab & Ors. v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) & Ors.) that, recovery of withdrawal against a Group-C staff is not permissible. The petitioner had retired from service on June 30, 2005. He has submitted that, the petitioner had made a representation for retaining the so-called overdrawn amount. A similar representation was allowed on behalf of the authorities. Consequently, either the representation of the petitioner is allowed by the authorities or the authorities be prevented from recovering the alleged overdrawn amount. 3. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondent has submitted that, the rights of the parties are government by the judgment and order dated January 11, 1996 passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench. In a batch of writ petitions the issue of the petitioner receiving the higher scale of pay consequent to the policy of promotion or a scale of pay consequent to the Pay Committee’s recommendation was considered. The Division Bench has directed that, such issue need to be gone into by an Expert Committee and that the salaries and emoluments already received by the employees concerned, should abide by the result of the recommendation of the Expert Committee. He has submitted that, the Expert Committee has looked into the issue. The Expert Committee has recommended promotion on 1:1 basis to the employees. Consequently, the pay received by the employees including the petitioner in addition to the 1:1 promotion policy is to be recovered. The authorities have initiated such recovery proceedings. Such recovery proceedings are permissible. In any event, the Division Bench’s judgment and order dated January 11, 1996 permits such a course of action being undertaken. Since the rights of the parties are governed by the Division Bench’s judgment and order dated January 11, 1996 the subsequent declaration of law by the Hon’ble Supreme Court does not affect the parties. 4. In any event, the Division Bench’s judgment and order dated January 11, 1996 permits such a course of action being undertaken. Since the rights of the parties are governed by the Division Bench’s judgment and order dated January 11, 1996 the subsequent declaration of law by the Hon’ble Supreme Court does not affect the parties. 4. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties and the materials made available on record. 5. The petitioner was working with the respondent no. 2. He had retired on June 30, 2005. During the course of his employment with the respondent no. 2, the petitioner was given benefit of upgradation in terms of 1:1 promotion policy. The Pay Committee’s report was also implemented. The issue of the entitlement of the petitioner along with persons similarly situated and circumstanced as that of the petitioner for their entitlement of 1:1 promotion policy and the Pay Committee’s report was subject matter of the writ petitions. Ultimately such writ petitions were disposed of by a judgment and order dated January 11, 1996 passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench. The Hon’ble Division Bench had directed to the State Government to appoint an Expert Committee to submit a report as to which it should be implement, that is to say, whether the 1:1 promotion policy or the Pay Committee’s report. The Hon’ble Division Bench went on to provide that, “In so far as the salaries and emoluments which have already gone into the hands of the respondents employees writ petitioners, we direct that they need not be deducted or adjusted pending the ultimate fixation of the pay scale of the respondents writ petitioners pursuant to the recommendations of the Expert Committee.” 6. The State Government had constituted the Expert Committee in terms of the Division Bench order. The Expert Committee has made various recommendations. Essentially the Expert Committee has stated that, the petitioner and the persons similarly situate would be entitled to 1:1 promotion. So far as the overdrawn amount is concerned, the Expert Committee has left it to the discretion of the appropriate authority taking into account the individual cases and the hardship of such cases. In the present case, the petitioner has neither made out nor has canvassed a case of hardship. The recovery proceedings was initiated much prior to the retirement of the petitioner. 7. Shyam Babu Verma (supra) and Rafiq Masih (White Washer) & Ors. In the present case, the petitioner has neither made out nor has canvassed a case of hardship. The recovery proceedings was initiated much prior to the retirement of the petitioner. 7. Shyam Babu Verma (supra) and Rafiq Masih (White Washer) & Ors. (supra) are cases where the issue of overdrawal did not receive the attention of the Court with regard to the petitioner in earlier proceedings, as that of the present case. The facts scenario are different. In the present case, the parties are governed by the judgment and order dated January 11, 1996. 8. In such circumstances, I do not find any merit in the present case. W.P. No. 2311 of 2005 is dismissed. No order as to costs.