- (1.) Heard the learned Advocates for the parties.
(2.) The writ petitioner was an approved Assistant Teacher of "Keshabpur Gadadhar Jagindra Milan Vidyapith" of Keshabpur Jalpai, District-Purba Medinipur. He retired from service on 30th April, 2003, after thirty-three years spent in teaching. THE scale of pay of the writ petitioner was revised from time to time, as per ROPA 81, ROPA 90 and ROPA 98. As such, revised scale of pay and fixation of the scale of pay were duly recorded by the school authorities in the service-book of the writ petitioner. THE same was also approved from time to time by the concerned District Inspector of Schools, without any dispute and/or complain. Before retirement, all his papers were submitted by the school authorities to the concerned District Inspector of Schools for the purpose of sanctioning pensionary benefits including gratuity. Upon receiving the Pension Payment Order, the writ petitioner came to learn for the first time that Rs.1,29,737/- has been deducted from the gratuity amount due and payable to him, on account of overdrawal in pay. It is an admitted position that such deduction has been made by the authorities without giving any notice to the writ petitioner and without assigning any reasons. The writ petitioner raised an objection before the concerned Treasury Officer but to no avail. In such circumstances, the instant writ petition has been filed praying, inter alia, for issuance of writ in the - nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to refund the amount of Rs.1,29,737/-, which has been deducted from the gratuity amount of the writ petitioner after his retirement, together with interest at the rate of 10% per annum on such amount to be payable from the date of retirement till such payment was made by the concerned authority. At the time of hearing of the instant matter, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the State fairly submits that it was impermissible for the respondent authorities to deduct any amount from the gratuity amount payable to the writ petitioner upon his retirement.
(3.) In my view, the issue, sought to be raised by the writ petitioner in the instant case, has been well-settled by various pronouncements of the Supreme Court as well as by this Court. IN a recent decision of the Supreme Court reported in (Syed Abdul Qadir Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors., 2009 1 Supreme 163) it has held, inter alia, as follows:- "..........This Court, in a catena of decisions, has granted relief against recovery of excess payment of emoluments/allowances if (a) the excess amount was not paid on account of any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee and (b) if such excess payment was made by the employer by applying a wrong principle for calculating the pay/allowance or on the basis of a particular interpretation of rule/order, which is subsequently found to be erroneous. The relief against recovery is granted by Courts not because of any right in the employees, but in equity, exercising judicial discretion to relieve the employees from the hardship that will be caused if recovery is ordered. But, if in a given case, it is proved that the employee had knowledge that the payment received was in excess of what was. due or wrongly paid, or in cases where the error is detected or corrected within a short time of wrong payment, the matter being in the realm of judicial discretion, Courts may, on the facts and circumstances of any particular case, order for recovery of the amount paid in excess. See: Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana, 1995 Supp1 SCC 18, Shyam Babu Verwa v. Union of India, 1994 2 SCC 521; Union of India v. M. Bhaskar, 1996 4 SCC 416; V. Ganga Ram v. Regional Jt, Director, 1997 6 SCC 139; Col. B. J. Akkara (Retd.) v. Government-of India and Ors., 2006 11 SCC 709; Purshottam Lal Das and Ors. v. State of Bihar, 2006 11 SCC 492; Punjab National Bank and Ors. v. Manjeet Singh and Anr., 2006 8 SCC 647; and Bihar State Electricity Board and Anr. v. Bijay Bahadur and Anr., 2000 10 SCC 99. In a recent Division Bench judgment of this Court dated 11th May, 2009, in the case of State of West Bengal and Ors. v. Sri Harekrishna Sardar and Anr., 2009 2 CalLJ 259 (Cal), it was observed, inter alia, that it is a settled proposition of law that any order which causes civil consequences can only be passed after observing rules of natural justice.;