Jharkhand High Court
Madhuri Mandal vs The State Of Jharkhand on 25 January, 2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No.1886 of 2015
-------
1. Madhuri Mandal
2. Sujit Kumar Mandal
3. Avijit Kumar Mandal ... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. The Secretary, Primary Education Department, HRD,
Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi.
3. The Director, Primary Education Department, HRD,
Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi.
4. The District Superintendent of Education Pakur.
5. The Accountant General, Jharkhand, A.G. , Ranchi.
... ... Respondents
-------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
-------
For the Petitioners :Mr. Gaurav Abhishek, Adv.
For the Res.State : Mr. Navneet Toppo, Adv.
For the Res. No.5 : Mr. S. Srivastava, Adv.
-------
14/25.01.2021 Heard learned counsel for the parties through
V.C.
2. The instant writ application has been preferred
by the petitioners for following reliefs:-
(a) For issuance of appropriate writ/writs,
order/orders, direction/directions or a writ in
the nature of certiorari quashing the
computation made by the D.S.E, Pakur, wherein
a sum of Rs.4,56,894/- has been made
recoverable and to refund the said amount along
with interest to the petitioner.
(b) For quashing of part pension payment
order issued by the Senior Account Officer of the
Office of Accountant General, Jharkhand
whereby the head of government dues a sum of
Rs.4,56,894 has been shown due payable by the
petitioner towards the State Authorities and
some amount has been also recovered from the
petitioner in a most arbitrary manner even when
there is no order of recovery ever passed against
the petitioner after his retirement.
(c) For directing upon the respondent to fix the
pension on the basis of last pay drawn by the
petitioner being Rs.12,500/- in place of
Rs.11,000/-.
(d) For directing upon the respondents to pay
earned leave to the petitioner for 14 days as the
petitioner was entitled for payment of earned
leave of 275 days even then the earned leave
paid to the petitioner is calculated on 261 days.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
even though the last pay drawn of the petitioner was
Rs.12,500/- but the same has been reduced to Rs.11,250/-
in the calculation chart in an arbitrary manner. He further
submits that though in Annexure-4, the details given by
the Office of Accountant General; net payable amount is
being shown but the fact remains that without any order of
recovery his pension has been fixed in a lower stage. He
further submits that in similar type of cases this Court has
granted relief to other petitioners directing the respondent-
State to fix the pension on the basis of last pay drawn by
him but in the instant case the same has not been done.
Learned counsel further referred to a judgment passed in
the case of State of Punjab and Ors. Vs. Rafiq Masih
(White Washer) and Ors. reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334
wherein at paragraph no.18, the Hon'ble Apex Court has
held as under:-
"18. It is not possible to postulate all situations of
hardship which would govern employees on the issue
of recovery, where payments have mistakenly been
made by the employer, in excess of their entitlement.
Be that as it may, based on the decision referred to
hereinabove, we may, as a ready reference, summarize
the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the
employers, would be impermissible in law:
(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 cases 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."
Relying upon the aforesaid contention and the
judgment; learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
the respondent authorities may be directed to look into the
matter and calculate the pension of the petitioner afresh on
the basis of last pay drawn.
4. Mr. Navneet Toppo, learned counsel for the
respondent-State submits that in paragraph-17 of the writ
application; the petitioner himself had stated that no order
has been passed / communicated to the petitioner with
regard to recovery of any amount. However, he fairly
submits that if there is any grievance of the petitioner with
regard to settlement of his pension vis-à-vis last pay drawn;
he may approach the concerned authority for redressal of
his grievance.
5. Mr. S. Srivastava, learned counsel for the
Accountant General submits that no grievance of the
petitioner is against the answering respondent.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
after perusing the documents annexed with this writ
application; the instant writ application, is hereby,
disposed of by directing the petitioners to file fresh
representation/(s) along with relevant documents and the
judgment referred to herein above before the respondent
no.4 within a period of three months. If any such
representation/(s) is/are filed; the same shall be considered
and verified on the basis of documents/records and take a
decision in the matter within a period of four months from
the date of receipt of such representation(s) and if any
amount which would be found payable to the petitioners;
same shall be paid to them within a further period of Six
weeks.
7. With the aforesaid terms, the instant writ
application stands disposed of.
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
Fahim/-
