Sikha Kundu Chakraborty vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 5567 Cal

17.08.2022.
Item no. 671.
Court No. 13
   ap
                               W.P.A. No. 12387 of 2022

                            Sikha Kundu Chakraborty
                                      Versus
                           The State of West Bengal & Ors.

                 Mr. Goutam Kumar Maity.
                                                      ..For the petitioner.
                 Mr. Kapil Guha.
                                                         ...For the State.

                 Affidavit-of-service filed in Court today is taken

           on record.

                 In the present case the writ petitioner is

           aggrieved by the order of deduction of the overdrawn

           amount    of    a    sum   of   Rs.2,53,968/-       after    her

           retirement. The writ petitioner was an Assistant

           Teacher who retired from service on 30.04.2020 and

           the   pension   was     paid    by   the    authorities     after

           deducting the aforesaid amount as overdrawn amount.

                 The issue whether overdrawal of pay can be

           adjusted against retirement dues of an employee has

           been settled in the case of Shyam Babu Verma & Ors.

           v. Union of India & Ors., reported in (1994) 2 SCC 521

           and also in a later decision in the case of Syed Abdul

           Qadir & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in (2009)

           3 SCC 475.

                 Counsel on behalf of the respondent authorities

submits that there is no considerable delay in

approaching the Writ Court and accordingly, the Writ

Court should not allow such a prayer.

A judgement of a co-ordinate Bench of this court

in the case of Shiba Rani Maity v. The State of West

Bengal in W.P. No. 29979 (W) of 2016 as well as

Biswanath Ghosh v. The State of West Bengal in W.P.

No. 27562 (W) of 2016 has categorically held that in a

case where no rights have accrued in favour of a third

party, the petitioner who has suffered by reason of

non-payment of amount withheld on the grounds of an

alleged overdrawal has a right to approach this court

for appropriate relief. The relevant paragraphs from

WP No. 29979 (W) of 2016 are set out below:

"(15) The only other question is that whether the writ petition should be entertained in spite of delay of about 17 years in approaching this Court. In a judgment and order dated 6 September, 2010 delivered in MAT 1933 of 2010 passed by a Division Bench of this Court and held that although the petitioner had approached the Court after a lapse of nine years, no third party right had accrued because of the delay and it was only the petitioner who suffered due to non-payment of the withheld amount on account of alleged over-drawal. Accordingly the Division Bench set aside the order of the Learned Single Judge by which the writ petition had been dismissed only on the ground of delay.

(16) Following the Division Bench judgment of this Court adverted to above, I hold that it is only the petitioner who suffered by reason of the wrongful withholding of the aforesaid sum from his retiral benefits. Although there has been a delay of about 17 years in approaching this Court, the same has not

given rise to any third party right and allowing this writ application is not going to affect the right of any third party. It may also be noted that the Hon'ble Apex Court observed in its decision in the case of Union of India vs. Tarsem Singh, (2008) 3 SCC 648 that relief may be granted to a writ petitioner in spite of the delay if it does not affect the right of third parties."

It is clear from the above that a Writ of

Mandamus is prayed for is maintainable in the facts of

the present case.

The Director of Pension, Provident Fund and

Group Insurance, Government of West Bengal,

concerned District Inspector of Schools and also the

concerned Treasury Officer are accordingly directed to

release the amount of Rs.2,53,968/- to the petitioner

along with interest @8% per annum with effect from

the date of issuance of the pension payment order,

within a period of eight weeks from the date of

communication of this order.

The petitioner has undertaken before this Court

that she shall not claim any further benefits on

account of the pension that is being paid to her based

on the last drawn pay as per the pension payment

order issued on 16th November, 2020.

With the aforesaid directions, the instant writ

petition is disposed of.

There will be no order as to costs.

Urgent certified website copy of this order, if

applied for, be made available to the petitioner upon

compliance with the requisite formalities.

(Rajasekhar Mantha, J.)