Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Manoranjan Maity vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 12 April, 2023
12.04.2023 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
DL-2 CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
(PP) APPELLATE SIDE
WPA 17424 of 2019
Manoranjan Maity
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Manas Kumar Ghosh,
Ms. Susmita Dey (Basu)
...for the petitioner.
Ms. Sonal Sinha
......for WBSMICL.
Affidavit-in-opposition filed in Court today is
retained with the records.
The petitioner was a Group- 'C' employee of the
West Bengal State Minor Irrigation Corporation
Limited (in short, "WBSMICL"). The petitioner was
superannuated from his service on August 31, 2017.
The retiral benefits of the petitioner was belatedly paid
on July 9, 2019. From the retiral benefits due and
payable to the petitioner, a sum of Rs.181,584/- was
deducted on the ground of the same being overdrawn
by the petitioner.
Mr. Ghosh, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the petitioner submits that not only the petitioner
has suffered extreme hardship due to the deduction of
the purported overdrawn amount post retirement but
also suffered hardship because of the belated
disbursement of the retiral dues.
2
Mr. Ghosh further argues that such deduction
was arbitrary and illegal and the petitioner's case is
squarely covered by the decision reported in (2015) 4
SCC 344 [The State of Punjab and Ors. vs. Rafiq
Masih (White Washer)]. He relies on the 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 circumstances.
"(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."
He 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 post
retirement.
Ms. Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the employer/WBSMICL submits that the
petitioner's case is different from that of Rafiq Masih
3
(supra). She relies on the Circular dated July 14,
2010 issued by the Managing Director, WBSMICL in
support of her contentions that pay
fixation/enhancement of the pay was 'provisional' and
'overdrawal', if any could be recovered forthwith. She
submits that since it was made unequivocally clear by
the Memo dated July 14, 2010 that the benefits are
provisional and overdrawal can be recovered, 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 was a Group-'C' employee.
(c) The recovery of the overdrawn amount was
made post retirement.
(d) 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.
(e) It is also not lost upon this Court that the
overpayment/overdrawal made to the
petitioner was not on account of any
misrepresentation by the petitioner relying on
4
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 August 31, 2017 will suffer extreme
hardship in the event the said amount of Rs.
181,584/- is not paid to him. The deduction of the
amount for being overdrawn has already caused
hardship to the petitioner. Furthermore the petitioner
suffered extreme hardship due to belated payment of
retiral dues.
In the circumstances, the impugned order dated
July 2, 2019 is quashed and/or set aside.
The respondent authorities are directed to pay
the said overdrawn amount of Rs.181,584/- along
with the interest @ 6% p.a. from September 1, 2017
(being the date succeeding the date of retirement) till
the date of actual payment within six weeks from date
to the petitioner.
The petitioner will be entitled to interest @ 6%
p.a. on the sum of Rs.10,68,714/- from September 1,
2017 (being the date succeeding the date of
retirement) till July 9, 2019 (being the date when the
said amount was released to the petitioner).
With the directions aforesaid, WPA 17424 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.)
