The Calcutta High Court held that employees who have not received their withheld pension amounts have the legal right to seek recourse in court, regardless of any delay in doing so and the recovery demanded from the petitioner fell within the category of impermissible recovery, given the nature of the case and the applicable legal principles.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner’s wife, who was an Assistant Teacher in a school in West Bengal passed away while in service in 2019. So the petitioner was entitled to receive retiral benefits following his wife's death. As a pre-condition for disbursal of the retiral benefits, the petitioner was required to deposit a sum of Rs.81,592/- by way of Treasury Challan on the ground of alleged overdrawal. The present petition has been filed challenging this.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that the demand for the deposit was unjust, and unnecessary and fell within the category of impermissible recovery, given the nature of his case. The petitioner argued that the delay in approaching the court did not affect the rights of third parties, so he had the right to approach the court.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent contended that the demand to deposit the specified amount was justified under regulation governing the disbursement of retiral benefits. They argued that the demand for deposit was in accordance with established administrative practices and was not arbitrary or unjust.
Observations of the court:
The court acknowledged the petitioner's right to seek relief from the demand for deposit, despite a delay in approaching the court and further relied on the decision in the case of India vs. Tarsem Singh wherein the Supreme Court emphasized that relief may be granted to a petitioner as long as it does not affect the rights of third parties and further held that individuals who suffer due to the non-payment of withheld amounts have the right to approach the court for appropriate relief, even if there had been a delay in doing so.
Further, the court referred to the decision in the case of Shyam Babu Verma & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. wherein the Supreme Court had provided the relevant legal principles regarding the adjustment of overdrawn pay against retirement dues. It was stated by the court that the recovery demanded from the petitioner fell within the category of impermissible recovery, given the nature of the case and the applicable legal principles.
The decision of the Court:
The court directed the respondents to release the amount of Rs.81,592/- to the petitioner along with interest @8% per annum with effect from the date of issuance of the pension payment order.
Case Title: Harendra Nath Bishayi vs The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajasekhar Mantha
Case No.: WPA No. 4704 of 2024
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Banshi Badan Maity
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Debnarayan Patra, Mr. Aviroop Bhattacharyya
Read Judgment@LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
