Allowed

Sandhya Rani Biswas v. the State of Assam and 7 Ors.

Gauhati HC11 Aug 2022WP(C)/8550/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a retired teacher, challenged a letter directing recovery of excess pension pay drawn years after retirement. The Court quashed the recovery order and directed payment of pension and gratuity, relying on the Supreme Court rule against recovery from retired employees after five years.

What did the court decide?

Impugned letter quashed; respondents directed to pay pension and gratuity within two months.

Sandhya Rani Biswas Vs the State of Assam… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/5

¶2

GAHC010271692018

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/8550/2018

¶5

SANDHYA RANI BISWAS D/O HARISH CHANDRA BISWAS R/O GOPINATH BORDOLOI ROAD, P.S. AND DIST. NAGAON, ASSAM.

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 7 ORS.

¶8

REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI -6.

¶9

2:THE SECRETARY FINANCE DEPARTMENT GOVT. OF ASSAM DISPUR, GUWAHATI -6.

¶10

3:THE SECONDARY EDUCATION ASSAM, KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI -19.

¶11

4:THE INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS NOWGAON DISTRICT CIRCLE DIST. NAGAON, ASSAM, PIN - 782002.

¶12

5:THE HEADMISTRESS

¶13

NAGAON BENGALI GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL NAGAON, ASSAM, PIN - 782002

¶14

6:THE HEADMISTRESS

¶15

BENGALI GIRLS L.P. SCHOOL NAGAON, ASSAM, PIN - 782002.

¶16

7:THE DIRECTOR OF PENSION GOVT. OF ASSAM HOUSEFED COMPLEX DISPUR, GUWAHATI -6.

¶17

Page No.# 2/5

¶18

8:THE TREASURY OFFICER NAGAON TREASURY DIST. NAGAON ASSAM, PIN - 78200

¶19

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR S SARMA Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM

¶20

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE LANUSUNGKUM JAMIR

¶21

ORDER

¶22

th 11 August, 2022

¶23

Heard Mr. S. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.M.T. Chistie, learned standing counsel, Secondary Education Department, for respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4, Mr. A. Chaliha, learned standing counsel, Finance Department, for respondent No. 2 and Mr. S.R. Baruah, learned standing counsel for the respondent No. 7.

¶24

2 . By this writ petition, the petitioner is praying for change of Date of Birth in her Service Book and is aggrieved due to her retirement from service with effect from 31-01-2010 and also the letter dated 21-10-2017, written by the Finance and Account Officer, Office of the Director of Pension, Assam and addressed to the Treasure Officer, Nagaon Treasury for excess recovery from the petitioner’s pensionery benefits.

¶25

3 . At the outset, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is not pressing with regard to the change of date of birth of the petitioner as well as her retirement made on 31-07-2010. He submits that the petitioner is only pressing against the impugned letter dated 21-10-2017 by which the office of the Director of Pension, Assam, intimated the Treasury Officer, Nagaon Treasury, that recovery of Rs.5,05,879/- from her pensionery benefits due to equilisation of pay on 01-01-

¶26

Page No.# 3/5

¶27

1996 by increasing the pay from Rs.4390/- to Rs.5725/- as no approval of the Finance Department, Government of Assam, was taken at that relevant point of time.

¶28

4 . The matter with regard to recovery of excess amount after retirement of an employee is already settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and others vs Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others, reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 . The relevant portion of the said judgment reads as under:

¶29

“18. It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship, which would govern employees on the issue of recovery, where payments have mistakenly been made by the employer, in excess of their entitlement. Be that as it may, based on the decisions referred to herein above, we may, as a ready reference, summarise the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law:

¶30

(i) Recovery from employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV service (or 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 far outweigh the equitable balance of the employer's right to recover.”

¶35

5 . It is undisputed that the petitioner was appointed on 31-01-1978 to act as Assistant Teacher in the Bengali Girls High School, Nowgang. Thereafter, by the letter dated 29-06-2010, written by the Headmistress & Secretary Nagaon Bengali Girls’ High School, Nagaon, addressed to the Inspector of Schools, Nagaon District

¶36

Page No.# 4/5

¶37

Circle, Nagaon, informed that the petitioner is going to retire from service after attaining the age of 60 years, on 20-07-2010 and she is to retire in the afternoon of 31-07-2010. The petitioner, thereafter, superannuated on attaining the age of 60 years on 31-07-2010 and thereafter, the process for payment of pensionery benefit started.

¶38

6 . As she was not paid her pensionery benefits, she approached this Court by way of WP(C) No. 1351/2013. While the writ petition was pending, the matter was referred to the Lok Adalat. The Lok Adalat, by an Award, settled the dispute directing that the Department of Education shall forward the required proposal within 15-01-2015, the Director of Pension shall issue the Pension Payment Order (PPO) within 31-03-2015. As regards gratuity, the same shall also be paid to the petitioner by the Department within 15-01-2015.

¶39

7 . Thereafter, the retirement benefits of the petitioner was given amounting to a sum of Rs.10,79,253/- against the G.P.F., G.I.S, Leave Encashment Benefit and provisional pension from August, 2010 to September, 2014. However, the gratuity is yet to be paid to the petitioner and the regular pension of the petitioner is also yet to be paid. In the meantime, the Finance and Accounts Officer, Government of Assam, wrote the impugned letter dated 21-10-2017 addressed to the Treasury Officer for recovery of the excess amount drawn by the petitioner with regard to the equalization of pay as on 01-01-1996, increasing the amount from Rs.4390/- to Rs.5725/-.

¶40

8 . It is to be noted that the petitioner retired from service on 31-07-2010 and the said letter of recovery of excess payment was written only in the year 2017, i.e., 21-10-2017. Seven years had elapsed after the retirement of the petitioner and, therefore, in terms of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih (supra), no recovery can be made from the petitioner.

¶41

Page No.# 5/5

¶42

9 . In that view of the matter, the impugned letter dated 21-10-2017, written by the Finance and Accounts Officer, office of the Director of Pension, Assam to the Treasury Officer, Nagaon Treasury, Nagaon is set aside and quashed.

¶43

10 . The respondents are accordingly directed to pay the pension to the petitioner in terms of the last pay drawn as well as the gratuity amount at the earliest, but not later than two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

¶44

Writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶45

JUDGE

¶46

Comparing Assistant

Sandhya Rani Biswas v. the State of Assam and 7 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandhya Rani Biswas v. the State of Assam and 7 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

Rizwan Ahmed Vs Central Board of Secondary Education and 2 Ors.

Nirmal Chandra Sarkar Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Gopal Ch. Baruah and 16 Ors. Vs Bijoya Choudhury, Acs and Anr.

Sri Hanif Ali Vs Ainal Hoque and 6 Ors.

Sultan Ahmed and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Omar Ali and 11 Ors. Vs Md. Raful Amin and 6 Ors.