Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Niyati Panda vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 1 October, 2021
05
01.10.2021.
d.p.
In The High Court At Calcutta
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
Appellate Side
W.P.A 30562 of 2016
(Via Video Conference)
Niyati Panda
-versus
State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. K.B.S. Mahapatra,
Ms. Rama Halder.
...For the Petitioner.
Mr. Sandip Kumar Bhattacharyya.
...For the Respondent No.3.
None appears on behalf of the State respondents
in spite of service.
The husband of the petitioner retired as Associate
Professor and was holder of PPO No. Pen./CT-7541. He
allowed revised pension vide No. Pen.VI/CT-R-D-5464
dated 25th October, 2013. He expired on 11th February,
2016. During his lifetime the employee was paid his
retiral dues including the revised pension.
After his death, the widow by a communicating
Memo No. 512/TR dated 28th July, 2016 was intimated
by the Additional Treasury Officer, Purulia that a sum
of Rs.4,79,929/- was paid in excess to her deceased
husband. She was requested to appear before the
Additional Treasury Officer, Purulia for recovery of the
overdrawal amount.
It is the grievance of the widow that her family
pension is not being paid to her and substantial
amount has been deducted from the family pension on
account of refund of overdrawal amount.
From the documents which are available on
record, it appears that the Additional Treasury Officer,
Purulia has mentioned that the arrear family pension
for the period 12th February, 2016 to 30th September,
2016 may be processed only after the overdrawn
amount is recovered.
The petitioner relies upon the judgment delivered
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of
Punjab & Ors. -vs- Rafiq Masih (White Washer)
reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 wherein instances have
been provided where recovery by the employer would be
impermissible in law.
It mentions that recovery from the retired
employees and recovery from the employees when the
excess payment has been made for a period in excess of
five years before the order of recovery is issued is
impermissible.
In the instant case, the employee expired on 11th
February, 2016 and during his lifetime, the employer
never intimated him with regard to any amount which
was allegedly overdrawn by him.
Long after the death of the employee the widow
was intimated for refund of the overdrawal amount
allegedly paid in favour of her deceased husband. The
same in my opinion, is absolutely not permissible.
The Supreme Court has categorically laid down
that recovery from retired employees is impermissible.
The question of recovery from a deceased employee long
after he was superannuated, is certainly impermissible
in law.
In view of the above, the action of the Treasury
Officer in directing the petitioner to refund the amount
allegedly overdrawn by the employee is liable to be set
aside and is accordingly, set aside.
The Additional Treasury Officer, Purulia being the
respondent No.4 herein is directed to immediately take
steps for payment of the family pension in favour of the
petitioner along with all arrears which are due and
payable in her favour. Any amount which has been
deducted from the account of the petitioner on account
of refund of the overdrawal amount of the employee,
shall also be immediately refunded to the petitioner.
Steps shall be taken by the Additional Treasury
Officer at the earliest, but positively within a period of
eight weeks from the date of communication of a copy
of this order.
It is made clear that in the event the refund of the
payment is not made to the petitioner within the
aforesaid period of eight weeks, then the petitioner shall
be entitled to interest at the rate of 5% per annum on
the amount which has been wrongly deducted from the
family pension which the petitioner is entitled to
receive.
The interest shall be calculated from the date of
its accrual till the date of actual payment.
It is needless to mention that the Additional
Treasury Officer shall go on paying the regular family
pension to the petitioner without any deduction and
without any delay.
W.P.A 30652 of 2016 stands disposed of.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order be
supplied to the parties, if applied for, as early as
possible.
( Amrita Sinha, J.)
