Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Bimal Kumar Maity vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 29 August, 2022
29.08.2022.
Court No. 13
Item no. 538.
sp
W.P.A. No. 13014 of 2022
Bimal Kumar Maity
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Anirban Chakraborty
..For the petitioner.
Mr. Arindam Chattopachyay,
Ms. Lipika Chatterjee
...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.63,610/- after
his retirement. The writ petitioner was an
Assistant Teacher who retired from service on
31.12.1997 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.
2
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.
I accordingly direct the respondent authorities to
release the amount of Rs.63,610/- to the petitioner
along with interest @ 8% per annum with effect from
the date of issuance of the pension payment order.
Such payment is to be made to the petitioner within a
period of six weeks from the date of communication of
this order.
With the aforesaid directions, the instant writ
petition is disposed of without, however, any order as
to costs.
Since no affidavit has been called for, all
allegations made in the writ petition are deemed not to
have been admitted.
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.)
