Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J. - (1.) THE petitioner in this WP under art. 226 dated February 23, 2010 is questioning recovery of Rs. 35,662 from his retirement benefits. The petitioner was a secondary school teacher. On reaching the age of superannuation he retired from service on June 30, 2004. The respondents were under an obligation to pay him retirement benefits on July 1, 2004. The pension payment order was issued on June 17, 2004 granting him pension with effect from July 1, 2004, but showing recovery of Rs. 35,662 overpaid salary and allowances.
(2.) NOTHING was stated in the PPO how, why and when the overpayment in question had taken place. The aggrieved petitioner submitted a representation. The respondents did not give any attention to his grievances. He filed this WP that was admitted by an order dated February 25, 2010. Affidavit of service has been filed stating that the order dated February 25, 2010 was served on the respondents. The order was passed in presence of advocates for the State. By the order the respondents were directed to file affidavit -in -opposition within five weeks. They have chosen not to file any AO. None appears for them as well.
(3.) HOW , why and when the overpayment had taken place has remained unknown. It is not the case that the petitioner's pay had been wrongly fixed because of any misrepresentation on his part or fraud exercised by him. His pay had been fixed from time to time by the institute and the District Inspector of Schools was to approve the fixations. It is not the case that the fixations during the term of his employment had not been approved. It seems that only at the time of processing his pension case the office of the Director of Pension, Provident Fund & Group Insurance reopened the pay fixation issue.;