S.P. Talukdar, J. - (1.) In W.P. No. 10885 (W) of 2008, the petitioner approached this Court with an application under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for direction upon the respondent authority to repay the alleged overdrawn amount of Rs.1,36,858/- to the petitioner together with interest thereon.
(2.) Grievance of the petitioner, as ventilated in the application, may briefly be stated as follows:- After rendering 21 years of service and on attaining the age of superannuation on 28th February, 2005, the petitioner retired from service. During his service period, he used to be given increments from time to time and his scale of pay was also revised under the Revision of Pay & Allowance Rules on the basis of the option exercised by him and approved by the competent authority. He had no role to play in the matter of fixation of his pay scale. The respondent authorities issued the pension payment order after about four months of his retirement. It could be found from the said order that an amount of Rs. 1,36,858/- had been shown as 'overdrawn' and the said amount was deducted from his gratuity amount. The petitioner was not granted any opportunity of hearing. Question of recovery of any alleged overdrawn amount from the pensionery benefit could hardly arise since after retirement, relationship of employer and employee came to an end. The petitioner submitted a representation, which, however, did not receive the care and attention it deserved. The State, being a Model employer, cannot take advantage of any declaration or undertaking regarding recovery of any overdrawn amount. Such illegal and arbitrary action on the part of the respondent authority left the petitioner with no choice but to seek redress before the Court.
(3.) As against this, respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and No. 6 contested the case by filing Affidavit-in-Opposition wherein all the material allegations made by the petitioner had been denied. It had been claimed that the pay of the petitioner was wrongly fixed at Rs.1,665/- on 1.1.1991 instead of Rs. 1,610/-. In view of such wrong fixation, the pay of the writ petitioner was wrongly fixed from time to time till 31st December, 2003. The pension papers submitted by the School Authority in the office of the District Inspector of Schools (Secondary Education), Purba Medinipur, were verified by the Joint Director of Accounts and on verification such mistake was detected. All the papers were accordingly returned to the School Authority in order to enable them to recast the pay structure. Accordingly, the Headmaster calculated the overdrawn amount and submitted the same to the office of the District Inspector of Schools for the purpose of forwarding the same to the office of the Director of Pension, Provident Fund and Group Insurance for issuance of pension payment order. Accordingly, pension payment order was issued wherein a sum of Rs. 1,36,858/- was deducted from gratuity, which was paid to the petitioner on 15.6.2005. The respondent claimed that a mistake does not confer any right to any party and subsequent rectification of such mistake cannot be grudged. The petitioner retired on 31st March, 2004 and the pension payment order was issued on 19.1.2005 but the writ application was filed in 2008. The writ application, thus, is not maintainable on the ground of delay. The petitioner gave an undertaking that he would return any excess drawal. He did not raise any objection at the time of receiving the pension payment order. He received the same and did not challenge the calculation of overdrawal amount for the period from 1st January, 1991 to 31st December, 2003. The respondent, thus, categorically denied that the petitioner is entitled to any further relief in this case.;