Dipankar Datta, J. - (1.) THESE writ petitions, involving issues of law of frequent occurrence, were heard separately. Inter alia, several decisions of learned Judges of this Court (either sitting in a Division Bench or singly) have been cited on behalf of the petitioners and it has been submitted that the issues of law involved here are no longer res integra; hence I ought to simply follow the same without much ado. The State, while opposing these writ petitions, has submitted that certain very important and relevant aspects were not placed before the concerned Benches on the earlier occasions and the resultant decisions, without noticing such aspects, are sub -silentio rulings necessitating a re -look at the issues and further that in the interest of ensuring certainty, consistency and predictability, I ought to refer the same for re -consideration to a Division Bench or to the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for constituting an appropriate larger Bench. Considering such submissions advanced on behalf of the State, I have considered it proper to ascertain the worth thereof and I propose to consider each of the writ petitions separately. However, whatever result is reached in respect of all would be reflected in this common judgment and order. The writ petitions:
(2.) W .P. No. 5291(W) of 2014 is at the instance of Sri Tapan Kumar Mandal, who was an Assistant Teacher of Brahman Sasan High School, District Paschim Midnapore. He retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on September 30, 2005. The Pension Payment Or.(hereafter the PPO in short) was issued on the same day, in terms whereof Rs. 2,47,434/ - was mentioned as the entitlement of Sri Mandal on account of death -cum -retiring gratuity (hereafter gratuity in short). However, it was further mentioned therein that a sum of Rs. 44,657/ - had been overdrawn by Sri Mandal and he was thus entitled to Rs. 2,02,777/ - on account of net gratuity. He admits having received the said amount on January 27, 2006. The pleaded case, as appears from paragraphs 8 and 9 of the writ petition, is as follows: "8. That the petitioner states that the petitioner came to know the month of June, 2011 from a relative of his neighbour that one Rebindra (sic Rabindra) Nath Mondal, a retired teacher is moved a writ petition being W.P. No. 7572 (W) of 2011 before the Hon'ble High Court and the said writ petition was finally heard and disposed of by the Hon'ble Justice Jyotirmay Bhattacharya by a solemn order dated 17.05.2011 wherein His Lordship was pleased to direct the authority concerned to release the alleged overdrawn money in favour of said Rabindra Nath Mondal which has been deducted by the authority concerned after his retirement and having such information the petitioner decide (sic decided) to pray before the Hon'ble Court for release of the alleged overdrawn money and also to revise the pension on the basis of the last pay drawn by the petitioner............. 9. The petitioner states that the petitioner was taken a back (sic aback) by such abrupt incorporation of an imaginary amount in the PPO as an overdrawal amount to which the petitioner lodged his protest but the respondent verbally informed that without deduction of the said amount, the pensionary benefit cannot be released and accordingly the respondents Suo Moto (sic suo motu) deducted the said amount of Rs. 44,657/ - from the pensionary benefit of the petitioner and disbursed the remaining amount. The fact of such recovery would be evident from the memo No. 5691/S dated 30.09.2005." The delay in approaching the Court has been sought to be explained in the following words: "18. That the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a inhabitant of a remote village and from the long time ago he was suffering from various disease due to old age and more over he had no knowledge about the legal procedure to approach before the proper judicial forum for get relief. Time without number he visited personally with the concerned Treasury Officer as well as the concerned District Inspector of Schools (SE) Howrah and requested them to sanction and release 18% interest upon the gratuity amount for delayed payment very recently and he personally met with the concerned Treasury Officer to release the 18% interest on the gratuity amount for delayed payment but the concerned Treasury Officer straight way rejected the said prayer of the petitioner. Having no othis (sic other) alternative very recently he met with his Learned Advocate of the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta and requested him to take necessary steps before the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta for redressal his grievances and handed over the necessary papers and documents to him which were available to his. There was/is no wilful latches (sic laches) or negligence on the part of the petitioner to move this application before the Hon'ble Court on earlier occasion." Alleging that the action of the respondents in unilaterally deducting the sum of Rs. 44,657/ - from the gratuity payable to Sri Mandal without putting him on notice as well as without a hearing is illegal and arbitrary, the writ jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked by presenting the writ petition on February 17, 2014 seeking, inter alia, the following main relief : "a) A writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents, their men, agent and servants to refund the recovered amount of Rs. 44,657/ - which has been deducted by the authority concerned from the retrial gratuity as alleged overdrawn in favour of the petitioner along with interest @ 18% per annum forthwith; b) A writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents, their agents and servants to re fix the amount of monthly pension of petitioner on the basic (sic basis) of last pay drawn by the petitioner and accrued interest therein since the date of retirement till the date of actual disbursement, forthwith; c) A writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents, their agents and servants to pay litigation cost to the tune of Rs. 10,000/ - forthwith;" Smt. Ratna Barman (hereafter Smt. Barman), wife of late Suresh Chandra Barman, is the petitioner in W.P. No. 23116(W) of 2014 dated July 24, 2014, filed in the department on August 8, 2014. The deceased, was an Assistant Teacher of Singimari High School (H.S.) in the district of Cooch Behar. After putting in 33 (thirty -three) years of service, he retired on attaining the age of superannuation on March 31, 2002 and subsequently passed away on March 30, 2011. The PPO dated February 27, 2004 issued in favour of the deceased showed Rs. 72,795/ - as overdrawn pay and it is not in dispute that the retirement benefits were paid deducting such sum. According to Smt. Barman, the basic pay drawn by her husband at the time of his retirement was reduced and the aforesaid amount deducted without granting him any opportunity of hearing. In her attempt to explain the belated approach, Smt. Barman has pleaded in paragraph 15 as follows: "15. The petitioner has been suffering from various ailments, due to ill her health and also suffering financial crises after retirement, of the petitioner's husband could not able to take appropriate legal step against such deduction as impugned herein within the reasonable time. Considering such facts, delay in approaching this Hon'ble Court may kindly be condoned and be heard on merits." The main prayers of the writ petition read as follows : "In these circumstances, your petitioner most humbly prays that Your Lordships would be graciously pleased to issue - (a) A writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents specifically the respondent nos. 2 namely the Director of Pension, Provident Fund & Group Insurance, West Bengal to refund the deductible amount of Rs. 72,795.00 with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of retirement till the date of actual payment and refix the pension on the basis of the last pay drawn by her husband at the time of retirement and pay the arrears on the basis of such revised pension with interest to immediately and forthwith; (b) A writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to sanction the pensionary benefits of the petitioner's husband afresh on the basis of his last basic pay drawn at the time of retirement and issue a fresh pension payment order in favour of the petitioner's husband and pay all benefits with arrears and also refund the deductible amount with interest of the entire amount which is to be paid at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of retirement till such payment."
(3.) W .P. No. 9262(W) of 2014 has been presented by Sri Nepal Chandra Satapasti (hereafter Sri Satapasti) on March 19, 2014. After putting in over 3 (three) decades of service as an Assistant Teacher of Sree Sree Karunamoyee High School in the district of Cooch Behar, Sri Satapasti retired upon attaining the age of superannuation on April 30, 2010. The PPO was issued in his favour several months before retirement, on June 11, 2009 to be precise. An amount of Rs. 33,694/ - was shown as 'overdrawal in pay', adjustable with the gross retiring gratuity of Rs. 2,50,000/ - payable to him. In paragraph 7 of the writ petition, Sri Satapasti has pleaded that while issuing the PPO, the concerned authority reduced his basic pay drawn at the time of retirement and deducted the amount of Rs. 33,694/ - from his gratuity without granting him any opportunity of hearing. Claiming that alleged excess payment made to him was not due to any fraud or misrepresentation on his part and, therefore, unrecoverable, this writ petition dated March 20, 2014 was presented wherein prayer has been made for re -fixation of pension on the basis of the last pay drawn at the time of retirement and refund of the said amount of Rs. 33,694/ - together with 10% interest on the amount of Rs. 2,50,000/ - from the day following retirement till date of actual payment. Paragraph 15 of the writ petition contains pleadings seeking to explain the belated approach made by Sri Satapasti, reading as follows: "15 The petitioner has been suffering from various ailments, due to ill his health and also suffering financial crises after retirement, he could not able to take appropriate legal step against such deduction as impugned herein within the reasonable time. Considering such facts, delay in approaching this Hon'ble Court may kindly be condoned and be heard on merits.;