Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Ranat Kumar Pandey vs West Bengal State Minor ... on 8 December, 2022
32.
08.12.2022
S.D.
W.P.A. 20507 of 2019
Ranat Kumar Pandey
Vs.
West Bengal State Minor Irrigation
Corporation Limited & Ors.
Mr. Manas Kumar Ghosh
Ms. Susmita Dey (Basu)
... For the Petitioner
Ms. Sonal Sinha
....For the W.B.S.M.I.C.L.
The petitioner challenges an impugned order dated
July 30, 2019 whereby a sum of Rs.2,79,849/- was deducted
from the retiral benefits of the petitioner. The petitioner
superannuated from his service on November 30, 2019. The
impugned order was few months prior to the retirement of
the petitioner on July 30, 2019.
The petitioner worked as an operator with the West
Bengal State Minor Irrigation Corporation Limited (in short,
"WBSMICL"). The petitioner was a Group - 'C' employee.
Ms. Dey (Basu), learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the petitioner argues that such a deduction was arbitrary and
illegal. She submits that she is squarely covered by the
decision reported in (2015) 4 SCC 344 (The State of Punjab
and Ors. vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) ). She relies on the
2
conditions laid down in sub-paragraph nos. (i) to (v) of
paragraph no. 18 of the said judgment wherein the recovery
by the employers is held to be impermissible in law in the
following conditions.
"(i) Recovery from the employees belonging to
Class III and Class IV service (or Group C and Group
D service).
(ii) Recovery from the retired employees, or the
employees who are due to retire within one year, of
the order of recovery.
(iii) 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.
(iv) Recovery in case where an employee has
wrongfully been required to discharge duties of a
higher post, and has been paid accordingly, even
though he should have rightfully been required to
work against an inferior post.
(v) In any other case, where the Court arrives at
the conclusion, that recovery if made from the
employee, would be iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary
to such an extent, as would far outweigh the equitable
balance of the employer's right to recover."
She further submits, that not only the petitioner is a
Group - 'C' employee but also the recovery of the excess
amount has been made from an employee who was to retire
within one year.
Ms. Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
employer/WBSMICL submits that the petitioner's case is
different from that of Rafiq Masih (supra). She relies on the
Circular dated July 14, 2010 issued by the Managing Director,
WBSMICL in support of her contentions that pay
3
fixation/enhancement of the pay was 'provisional' and
'overdrawal', if any, was recoverable forthwith. She submits
that since it has been made of the said benefits unequivocally
clear by the Memo dated July 14, 2010 that the benefits are
provisional and recovery could be made, the petitioner
cannot maintain a case against recovery of an overdrawn
amount that was wrongly granted to him.
Having considered the rival submissions of the parties
and the materials placed on record, this Court finds;
(a) the petitioner is squarely covered by the ratio in the
case of Rafiq Masih (supra).
(b) The petitioner is not only a Group - 'C ' employee
but was also an employee who few months before
his retirement, from whom the amount of
Rs.2,79,849/- was sought to be recovered on account
of being overpaid.
(c) Reliance is placed by this Court on the Division
Bench Judgment in the case of West Bengal State
Minor Irrigation Corporation Ltd. & Ors. Vs.
Pradosh Kumar Kundu) in M.A.T. No. 750 of 2022.
(d) It is also not lost upon this Court that the
overpayment/overdrawal made to/by the petitioner
was not on account of any misrepresentation by the
4
petitioner relying on Sahib Ram vs. State of
Haryana and Ors. reported in 1995 Supp (1) SCC
18.
In the light of the discussions above, this Court finds
that the petitioner who has superannuated from service on
November 30, 2019 will suffer extreme hardship in the event
the said amount of Rs.2,79,849/- is not paid to him. The
deduction of the amount for being overdrawn has already
caused hardship to the petitioner.
In the circumstances, the impugned order dated July 30,
2019 is quashed and/or set aside.
The respondent authorities are directed to pay the said
overdrawn amount of Rs.2,79,849/- within six weeks from
date to the petitioner.
With the directions aforesaid, W.P.A. 20507 of 2019 is
disposed of.
All parties shall act on the server copy of this order
duly downloaded from the website of this Court.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied
for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all the
formalities.
(Lapita Banerji, J.)
