Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Bijoy Krishna Giri vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 26 July, 2022
26.07.2022.
Court No. 13
Item no. 463.
sp
W.P.A. No. 3545 of 2021
Bijoy Krishna Giri
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Gautam Kumar Maity
..For the petitioner.
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.21,255/- after his retirement.
The writ petitioner was an Assistant Teacher who
retired from service on 30.06.2021 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.
I accordingly direct the respondent authorities to
release the amount of Rs. 21,255/- 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.
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.)
