Allowed

Jeautima Chakravorty v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Gauhati HC3 Feb 2020WP(C)/436/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking quashing of a letter demanding recovery of excess pension due to alleged wrong pay fixation. The court directed the Inspector of Schools to submit the pension proposal without effecting any deduction or recovery, relying on Supreme Court principles regarding hardship for retired employees.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed directing respondents to furnish pension proposal within 45 days without any deduction or recovery on account of alleged wrong fixation of pay scale.

Jeautima Chakravorty Vs the State of Assam… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2020)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010015882020

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : WP(C) 436/2020

¶5

1:JEAUTIMA CHAKRAVORTY

¶6

W/O P.K. CHAKRAVORTY, R/O KALAKATA VILLAGE, P.O. BORBARUAKHAT, PIN-785692, DIST. CHARAIDEO, ASSAM

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

1:THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS.

¶9

REP. BY COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, THE PENSION DEPTT. SACHIVALAYA, DISPUR, GUWAHATI, ASSAM, PIN-781006

¶10

2:THE DIRECTOR OF PENSION HOUSE FED COMPLEX LAST GATE DISPUR GUWAHATI ASSAM-781006

¶11

3:THE FINANCE AND ACCOUNTS OFFICER DIRECTORATE OF PENSION HOUSE FED COMPLEX DISPUR GUWAHATI-06

¶12

4:THE DIRECOR OF SECONDARY EDUCATIO ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI-19

¶13

5:THE INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS SIVASAGAR

¶14

Page No.# 2/4

¶15

DIST. SIVASAGAR PIN-78566

¶16

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B P BORAH

¶17

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM

¶18

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. KOTISWAR SINGH

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Date : 03-02-2020

¶21

Heard Mr. B. P. Borah, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R. Mazumder, learned Standing Counsel, Education (Secondary) Department and Mr. B. Deuri, learned Govt. Advocate, Assam.

¶22

The present petition has been filed seeking quashing of the letter dated 26.09.2018 issued by the Office of the Finance and Accounts Officer, Directorate of Pension, Assam addressed to the Inspector of Schools, Sivasagar in which it was observed that the pay as on 01.10.1979 of the petitioner should be fixed at Rs.274/- instead of Rs.281/- and excess payment till retirement may be calculated and also forwarded the excess drawn statement of amounting to Rs.1,82,153.02/- (One lakh eighty two thousand one hundred fifty three) by the petitioner, for making recovery from the pensionary benefits due to the petitioner. It has also been mentioned in the said letter that while submission of new pension proposal, steps should be taken to see that the deficiency does not recur again which may lead to return of pension proposal.

¶23

This Court is of the view that this is a matter which should be examined by the Inspector of Schools, Sivasagar, who will accordingly, do the needful and submit the appropriate pension proposal to the concerned authorities.

¶24

Further, it is also made clear that while submitting the new pension proposal of the petitioner, there should not be any deduction on account of alleged wrong fixation of pay scale which had occurred while the petitioner was serving as an Assistant Teacher of Kalakata Higher Secondary School under the establishment of Inspector of Schools, Sivasagar.

¶25

Page No.# 3/4

¶26

Moreover, the petitioner has also retired from service on 30.09.2017, more than a year before the aforesaid letter dated 26.09.2018 had been issued.

¶27

This Court holds so, in view of the principles adopted by the Government of Assam by issuing the Office Memorandum dated 14.06.2019 in terms of the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc. in CA No. 11527 of 2014 (Arising out of SLP No. 11684 of 2012) decided on 18.12.2014.

¶28

In the said Office Memorandum dated 14.06.2019, it has been held that under the following circumstances recovery may not be made:

¶29

“ 4. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while observing that it is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship which would govern employees on the issue of recovery, where payments have mistakenly made by the employer, in excess of their entitlement, has summarized the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers would be impermissible in law:

¶30

i. Recovery from employees belonging to Class III and IV service (for Group “C” and Group “D” service.

¶31

ii. Recovery from retired employees, or employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery.

¶32

iii. Recovery from employees, when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery is issued.

¶33

iv. Recovery in cases where an employee has wrongfully been required to discharge duties of a higher post, and has been paid accordingly, even though he should have rightfully been required to work against an inferior post.

¶34

v. In any other case, where the Court arrives at the conclusion, that recovery if made from the employee, would be iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary to such an extent, as would for outweigh the equitable balance of the employer’s right to recover.”

¶35

This Court is of the view that the case of the petitioner is covered by Para 4(ii) of the aforesaid Office Memorandum dated 14.06.2019.

¶36

Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of directing the respondent authorities, more particularly, respondent No. 5, the Inspector of Schools, Sivasagar to furnish the necessary pension proposal of the petitioner without effecting any deduction or directing any

¶37

Page No.# 4/4

¶38

recovery on account of alleged wrong fixation of pay scale of the petitioner, which exercise shall be undertaken within a periods of 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and thereafter, the pension authority shall release the pensionary benefits of the petitioner within further period of 2 (two) months from the date of receipt of the necessary pension papers from respondent No. 5, the Inspector of Schools, Sivasagar.

¶39

JUDGE

¶40

Comparing Assistant

Jeautima Chakravorty v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jeautima Chakravorty v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pranab Kumar Kalita Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Anjana Rani Bhattacharyya Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Krishna Ranjan Paul Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Mofiza Khanom Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Chandra Sing Ronghang Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Tosheswar Gogoi Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.