Tripura High Court
Mousumi Bhattacharjee vs The State Of Tripura on 18 February, 2025
Author: T. Amarnath Goud
Bench: T. Amarnath Goud
Page 1 of 8
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WA NO.94 OF 2024
Mousumi Bhattacharjee,
Wife of Sri Hiranmoy Bhattacharjee,
Resident of 21/4 Old Kalibari Lane
(near Narendra Ila Apartment),
P.O.- Agartala, P.S.- West Agartala,
District-West Tripura, Pin-799001
......Appellant(s)
Versus
1. The State of Tripura,
Represented by the Secretary, Department of Co-
operation, Government of Tripura, New Secretariat Complex,
Gurkhabasti, Agartala, P.O.- Kunjaban, P.S.- New Capital
Complex, Sub-Division- Sadar, District-West Tripura.
2. The Registrar of Co-operative Societies,
Government of Tripura, Palace Compound, P.O.-Agartala, P.S.-
West Agartala, District-West Tripura, Pin-799001.
3. The State Co-operative Marketing Federation of Tripura
Limited(Tripura Markfed), represented by its managing
Director, Badharghat, P.O.- Siddhi Ashram, P.S.-Amtali, District-
West Tripura, Pin-799003.
4. The Board of Directors, State Co-operative Marketing
Federation of Tripura Limited(Tripura Markfed), Badharghat,
P.O. Siddhi Ashram, P.S.-Amtali, District-West Tripura, Pin-
799003.
.......Respondent(s)
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Purusuttam Roy Barman, Sr. Advocate.
Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharjee, Advocate.
Mr. Koomar Chakraborty, Advocate.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Chandrasekhar Sinha, Advocate.
Mr. D. Sharma, Addl. G.A.
Mr. Dulal Ch. Saha, Advocate.
Date of hearing : 11.02.2025
Date of delivery of
Judgment & Order : 18/02/2025
Whether fit for reporting : NO.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT
JUDGMENT & ORDER
T. AMARNATH GOUD(J)
This present appeal has been filed under Rule B(A)
(General Rules for Writ Appeals) of Chapter VIII of the High Court of
Tripura Rules, 2023, read with Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, against the impugned Order dated 05.07.2024 passed in
WP(C) No.194 of 2024, whereby the learned Single Judge has partly
allowed the connected writ petition.
2. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner-appellant
was initially engaged on a contingent basis in Tripura Markfed on
11th January, 1993, before being regularized as Junior Assistant on
28th December, 2012. On 1st November, 2019, the petitioner-
appellant submitted a representation requesting two advance
increments based on their past experience. The Board of Directors
of Tripura Markfed, in a meeting held on 1st July, 2020, granted
these increments. However, following an audit report the
respondents found the increments were illegally granted. Thereafter
vide meeting dated 19th January, 2024, they decided to withdraw
the same. A memorandum issued on February 17, 2024,
subsequently reduced the petitioner's pay from Rs.34,100/- to
Rs.31,400/-, to be effective from 1st July 2023, and also initiated
recovery of the excess amount paid.
3. Hence, the writ petition was filed by the petitioner-
appellant herein seeking the following reliefs:
"(i) Issue Rule, calling upon the Respondents and each one of them, to
show cause as to why a Writ of Certiorari and/or in the nature thereof,
shall not be issued, directing them, to transmit the records, lying with
them, for rendering substantive and conscionable justice to the
Petitioners, and for quashing/setting aside the impugned Memoranda,
each dated 17.02.2024 (Annexure-11 supra), insofar as it relates to
reduction of the respective basic pays of the Petitioners;
(ii) Issue Rule, calling upon the Respondents and each one of
them, to show cause as to why a Writ of Mandamus and/or in the nature
thereof, shall not be issued, mandating/directing them, to restore the
respective basic pays of the Petitioners, to Rs.34,100/-(w.e.f.
01.07.2023), and also to restore 2 Nos. of advance increments,
alongwith all consequential benefits flowing therefrom, as granted to the
Petitioners, vide the Memorandum dated 16.07.2020 (Annexure-9
supra);
(iii) Issue Rule, calling upon the Respondents and each one of
them, to show cause as to why a Writ of Mandamus and/or in the nature
thereof, shall not be issued, mandating/directing them, not to recover
any amount, from the monthly salary of the Petitioners or from any other
service benefits, on account of the alleged excess payment;
(iv) In the Ad-interim, and thereafter, on hearing the parties, in
the Interim, an Order in terms of (iii) above;
(v) Call for the records, appertaining to this Writ Petition;
(vi) After hearing the parties, be pleased to make the Rule
absolute in terms of (i) to (iv) above;
(vii) Costs of and incidental to this proceeding
(viii) Any other Relief(s) as to this Hon'ble High Court may deem
fit and proper;"
4. Vide Judgment and Order dated 05.07.2024, the
learned Single Judge allowed the writ in part by directing the
respondents not to recover the amount, but insofar as the
withdrawal of the increments was concerned, the same stood
upheld.
5. Aggrieved by the second portion of the Order, i.e., the
withdrawal of the increments, the present writ appeal has been
filed.
6. Heard Mr. P. Roy Barman, learned Sr. Counsel, assisted
by Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel, and Mr. Koomar
Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-petitioner
Also heard Mr. C.S. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents-cooperation, and Mr. D. Sharma, learned Addl. G.A.,
appearing for the State-respondent.
7. Mr. Roy Barman, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant-petitioner, submits that the benefit of two advance
increments was consciously granted to the appellant in tune with
the decision of the Board of Directors, Tripura Markfed, in the
meetings held on 04.03.2020 and 01.07.2020. However, the same
was arbitrarily withdrawn from the appellant vide the meeting of the
Board of Directors, Tripura Markfed, dated 19.01.2024. The learned
Sr. Counsel contended that prior to such reduction of the basic pay,
the appellant was not confronted with any show-cause notice
inviting her explanation. As such, the said reduction of the basic pay
of the appellant, in the guise of pay fixation under the relevant
Revised Pay Rules, is in violation of the principles of natural justice.
The appellant-counsel contended that his client was not guilty of
fraud or misrepresentation regarding the alleged excess payment.
The respondents, on their own motion, had granted the same to the
appellant. The appellant is a Group-C employee, hence, any attempt
to recover excess payment would cause hardship to his client.
8. On the other hand, Mr. C.S. Sinha, learned counsel
appearing for the respondent-cooperation, argued that it is public
money, and the petitioner, without the authority of law, is not
supposed to have wrongful gains and is not entitled to the
increments. He also contended that the question of violating the
principles of natural justice and giving the petitioner an opportunity
before withdrawing the increments does not arise. The learned
counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to an audit report,
which states that by virtue of the proceedings of the Registrar and
the concerned Department, the petitioner had been extended the
financial benefit, and thereafter, in 2024, steps for recovery were
initiated. The action of the respondents is well within their authority,
and he prayed for the dismissal of the writ petition as well as the
writ appeal.
To substantiate his argument, he also relied upon
the reasoning given in the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
passed in Civil Appeal No.1763 of 2007, titled Raj Kumar Soni
& Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
9. Mr. D. Sharma, learned Addl. G.A., appearing for the
State-respondents, submitted that the recovery is within jurisdiction
and correct since it pertains to the recovery of pay fixation with the
increment and is not a one-time settlement of retirement benefits,
particularly for Group-D employees or clerical cadre employees. He
further submitted that, this Court earlier considering the decisions
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has taken a view that recovery of
amount paid in excess from a retired employee cannot be done, but
that principle does not apply in the present case. He prayed for the
dismissal of the case.
10. Heard both sides and perused the evidence on record.
11. During the course of argument, learned counsel for the
respondents has drawn the attention of this Court that the mistake
was committed by the respondent-Department in granting
increments and accordingly, a decision was taken by the Board and
they started the recovery of the amount. For that, the petitioner
preferred this Court by filing the writ petition and the learned Writ
Court by the said order dated 05.07.2024, partly allowed the same
in respect of decision of the respondents for recovery of the amount
paid against 2(two) increments, but, no relief was granted to the
appellant in respect of the reduction of the pay of the petitioner.
12. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the
respondents submitted that the audit was rightly pointed out that
the benefit were illegally given to the petitioner, as such, the Board
of Directors in their meeting resolved to reduce the pay of the
petitioner by excluding those 2(two) increments. But, in respect of
payment already made in favour of the appellant-petitioner in
pursuance of the decision of the Board dated 01.07.2020, learned
counsel for the respondents fairly submitted that the respondent-
Department stands agree with the decision of the learned Single
Judge in respect of that part that is the payment which have
already been made. But in respect of the reduction of the pay of the
petitioners, the learned counsel for the respondents fairly submitted
that the learned Single Judge after considering the material on
record rightly decided the said issue and as such at this stage there
is no scope to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge.
13. However, after hearing both the sides and
considering the materials placed on record that no proper
opportunity was granted to the petitioner-appellant by the
respondents before taking the decision in respect of reduction of the
pay of the petitioner, as such, the observation of the learned Single
Judge in respect of other part of the relief i.e., interference in
respect of reduction of the pay of the petitioner is interfered with
and the same observation is set aside. But in respect of the relief
granted as admitted by the respondents, there is scope to interfere
with the same observation made by the learned Single Judge. In
the result, the appeal is disposed of with a direction to the
respondents to deal with the matter of the petitioner-appellant in
accordance with law following the principles of natural justice. Till
any decision is made, no further recovery shall be made from the
petitioner-appellant.
14. As a sequel, any stay stands vacated. Pending
application(s), if any, also stand closed.
B. PALIT, J T. AMARNATH GOUD, J
suhanjit
RAJKUMAR Digitally
RAJKUMAR
signed by
SUHANJIT SUHANJIT SINGHA
Date: 2025.02.18
SINGHA 11:11:42 +05'30'
