Tapabrata Chakraborty, J. - (1.) The subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition is an order dated 16th August, 2016 passed by the respondent no.4 and the impugned denial of the respondents to disburse the pensionary benefits of the petitioner.
(2.) Shorn of unnecessary details the facts are that the petitioner was appointed to the post of an assistant teacher in Bar-ghasipur High School on 2nd February, 1976. With effect from 1st December, 1978, he was granted the benefits of post graduate scale of pay, having acquired the M.Sc. degree. Thereafter the petitioner was appointed to the post of Head Master at Kapasaria Bamunia Bandhab High School and such appointment was approved with effect from 15th February, 1989 by a memo dated 27th September, 1989 issued by the respondent no.7. Subsequent thereto, the petitioner's pay scale was revised in terms of the Revision of Pay and Allowances Rules (hereinafter referred to as the ROPA Rules). The petitioner thereafter attained the age of superannuation on 31st July, 2014. After the pension papers were prepared and forwarded and the petitioner was awaiting disbursement of the pensionary benefits, he was communicated a memo dated 4th November, 2016 issued by the respondent no.4. The said memo contained "Audit Observations", inter alia, to the effect that "option as per Ropa' 90 exercised w.e.f. 15.2.89 as H.M. in scale of pay 660-40-1100-50-1600/- seems to be not in order". By the said memo the respondent no.4 further advised the pension sanctioning authority to recast the petitioner's pay and to calculate the overdrawal and to obtain refund. Objecting against the said memo dated 4th November, 2016, the petitioner submitted a representation through his learned advocate to the respondent nos.3 and 4 on 1st August, 2017 but the same was not attended to and aggrieved thereby the petitioner has approached this Court.
(3.) Mr. Mostafa, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was granted the post graduate scale of pay after he enhanced his qualification and his pay was duly revised in terms of the ROPA Rules. The respondents did not at any juncture raise any objection as regards grant of such higher scale of pay and the revised benefits under the ROPA Rules. It is only about two years after his retirement the impugned memo dated 4th November, 2016 was issued by the auditing authority expressing a tentative view that the petitioner's fixation of pay in terms of the ROPA Rules seems to be not in order. On the basis of the said memo, the pension sanctioning authority, being the respondent no.7 has illegally withheld the disbursement of the pensionary benefits. Till date no final order has been communicated by the respondent no.7 to the effect that the petitioner has overdrawn any amount and no refund has been demanded. The petitioner's claim towards disbursement of the pensionary benefits has been simply kept in abeyance in an illegal manner.;