Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Arabinda Roy vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 6 February, 2023
108.
6.2.2023
S.D.
W.P.A. 3537 of 2020
Arabinda Roy
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Ms. Susmita Dey (Basu)
... For the Petitioner
Ms. Sonal Sinha
....For the W.B.S.M.I.C.L.
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 November 28, 2014. From the retiral benefits due
and payable to the petitioner, a sum of Rs.89,483/- was
deducted on the ground of the same being overdrawn by the
petitioner.
Ms. Dey (Basu), learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the petitioner submits that the petitioner has suffered extreme
hardship for the purported recovery of the overdrawal from
the retrial benefits. Furthermore, the petitioner has also
suffered for belated disbursement of the retiral benefits in
November 2015 approximately one year from the date of the
retirement.
2
Ms. Dey (Basu) 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)].
She 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 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 post retirement.
3
She prays for disbursement of the purported amount
along with interest @ 10% p.a. from the date succeeding the
date of retirement, i.e. November 29, 2014.
Ms. Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
employer/WBSMICL submits a report on affidavit.
The said report is retained with the records.
She submits that the fixation/enhancement of pay was
provisional and overdrawal, if any could be recovered
forthwith. The petitioner cannot maintain a case of recovery
of an overdrawn amount that is wrongly granted to him.
Having considered the rival submissions of the parties
and the materials placed on record, this Court finds that the
petitioner was a Group-C employee. The recovery of the
overdrawn amount was made post retirement during
disbursal of the retiral dues that was done after almost 1 year
from the date of his superannuation.
The petitioner is squarely covered by the ratio of the
case of Rafiq Masih (supra).
The overpayment/overdrawn amount was not on
account of any misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner.
However, this Court is of the view that the petitioner
has approached belatedly and relying on the judgment in the
case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Tarsem Singh reported in
4
(2008) 8 SCC 648, this Court holds that the claim on account
of interest due to belated payment of retiral dues should be
restricted to 3 years prior to the date of filing of the writ
petition. The petitioner should not be allowed to take
advantage of his own laches in approaching of the Court at a
belated stage and then praying for disbursement of the
interest for the entire period.
The respondent authorities will pay interest @ 6% p.a.
with effect from February 27, 2017 (being the date preceeding
three years from the date of filing of the writ petition).
In the light of the discussions above, this Court finds
that the petitioner will suffer extreme hardship if the
overdrawn amount of Rs.89,483/- is not refunded to him.
Let the said amount be refunded to him within three
months from date of the order.
Such accrued interest is payable within 3 months from
the date of this order.
With the directions aforesaid, W.P.A. 3537 of 2020 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 the
formalities.
(Lapita Banerji, J.)
