Benu Ranjan Goswami vs The State Of Tripura
2025 Latest Caselaw 210 Tri

Tripura High Court

Benu Ranjan Goswami vs The State Of Tripura on 30 July, 2025

                    HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                          AGARTALA
                     WP(C) No.54 of 2025

Benu Ranjan Goswami,
Son of Late Rash Mohan Goswami,
Resident of Singhamura, South Badharghat,
PO-Charipara, PS-Amtali, Agartala,
West Tripura, Pin-799003, Age-62 years.
                                                 .....Petitioner(s)

                              Versus
1. The State of Tripura, represented by the Commissioner &
Secretary to the Department of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare,
Government of Tripura, New Secretariat Complex, Gurkhabasti,
Agartala, PO-Kunjaban, PS-New Capital Complex, Sub-Division-
Sadar, District-West Tripura.
2. The Commissioner & Secretary, Finance Department,
Government of Tripura, New Secretariat Complex, Gurkhabasti,
Agartala, PO-Kunjaban, PS-New Capital Complex, Sub-Division-
Sadar, District-West Tripura.
3. The Director, Department of Agriculture & Farmers
Welfare, Government of Tripura, Krishi Bhawan, Akhaura Road,
PO-Agartala, PS-West Agartala, Sub-Division-Sadar, District-West
Tripura.
4. The Executive Engineer (Mechanical), Department of
Agriculture & Farmers' Welfare, Government of Tripura, PO-
Agartala, PS- West Agartala, District- West Tripura, Pin-799001.
5.    The Accountant General (A & E), Tripura, PO- Kunjaban,
PS- New Capital Complex, Sub-Division- Sadar, District- West
Tripura.
6.   The Senior Accounts Officer, Office of the Accountant
General (A & E), Tripura, PO- Kunjaban, PS- New Capital Complex,
Sub-Division- Sadar, District- West Tripura.
                                               ----Respondent(s)

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Purusuttam Roy Barman, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Koomar Chakraborty, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Dipankar Sarma, Addl. GA Mr. Soumyadeep Saha, Adv.

Date of hearing
and delivery
of Judgment & Order :     30.07.2025

Whether fit for
reporting             :   YES





           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT
                    Judgment & Order(Oral)

The present writ petition is filed by the petitioner

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 Mandamus and/or in the nature thereof, shall not be issued, mandating/directing them to revoke/rescind the impugned Letters dated 25.04.2023 & 10.01.2025 (Annexures-2 & 7 respectively supra);

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, not to recover any amount, either from the pensionary benefits of the Petitioner, or from his monthly pension, on account of the alleged excess payment;

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, to release the remaining Gratuity (amounting to Rs.2.5 lacs), alongwith Interest thereon (due to belated payment thereof), in favour of the Petitioner, and also, to modify the PPO of the Petitioner by restoring his actual Last Pay of Rs.1,20,500/-, and thereupon, release the arrears thereof;

iv) In the Ad-interim, and thereafter, on hearing the parties, in the Interim, an Order in terms of (i) & (ii) 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;"

2. Heard Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Purusuttam Roy

Barman assisted by Learned Counsel, Mr. Koomar Chakraborty

appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Also heard Learned Addl. GA,

Mr. Dipankar Sarma appearing on behalf of the respondents-State

and Learned Counsel, Mr. Soumyadeep Saha appearing on behalf of

the respondent Nos.5 and 6.

3. Brief fact of the case is that the petitioner namely, Benu

Ranjan Goswami joined in the post of Extension Officer

(Engineering), Group-C under the Department of Agriculture,

Government of Tripura on 29.12.1987. Thereafter, on completion of

4(four) years of service, he was given the benefit of gradation/auto

movement to the post of Junior Engineer (Mechanical), Grade-I

(Group-B) w.e.f. 29.12.1991. Again, on completion of next 8(eight)

years of service, he was granted the benefit of CAS-II w.e.f.

29.12.1999. After that on completion of 25 years of service he was

given the benefit of ACP-III w.e.f. 29.12.2012 and after rendering a

considerable period of time, he superannuated from service on

31.01.2023.

3.1. Thereafter, the petitioner received one letter dated

25.04.2023 issued by the respondents reducing the Last Pay of the

petitioner from Rs.1,20,500/- to Rs.1,13,600/- on the premise of a

purported fixation. It was also mentioned in the said letter that the

balance amount of gratuity and the entire commuted value of

pension was withheld by the respondents. After that, again on

18.08.2023 a revised PPO was issued indicating his reduced Last

Pay of Rs.1,13,600/-. Thus, the monthly pension of the petitioner in

terms of his reduced Last pay was initiated and 75% of the gratuity

amount was released. However, the respondents withheld

remaining gratuity amounting to Rs.2.5 lakhs and the entire

commuted value of pension. Being aggrieved, the petitioner

submitted a representation on 27.07.2023 to the respondent

authority requesting not to recover any amount and to release his

outstanding dues. But as his grievance was unaddressed so, the

petitioner filed one writ petition before this Court bearing WP(C)

No.778 of 2023 which was disposed of on 29.01.2024 with a

direction to consider his representation within a period of 3(three)

months. However, the same was not complied with so, the

petitioner further filed Cont.Cas(C) No.93 of 2024 and in the

contempt proceeding this Court vide order dated 06.01.2025

directed the respondents to conclude the proceeding in pursuance

of order dated 29.01.2024 and to issue a speaking order by

01.02.2025. Thereafter, the respondent No.4 vide communication

dated 10.01.2025 directed the petitioner to deposit the alleged

excess amount of Rs.5,75,504/- within 4(four) days. Being

aggrieved with that communication, the petitioner filed the present

writ petition seeking the reliefs as stated above.

4. At the time of hearing, Learned Senior Counsel for the

petitioner submitted that there was no fraud or misrepresentation in

discharging duties on the part of the petitioner and the Department

itself fixed the pay of the petitioner and if any excess payment was

made, that was due to the wrong fixation of pay by the

Department. Moreover, since the petitioner has gone on

superannuation so, if at this stage, any recovery order is made that

should cause undue hardships to the petitioner and also would be

iniquitous. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Roy Barman further

submitted that in view of the principle of law laid down by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in State of Punjab vs. Rafiq

Masih, reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 and in Thomas Daniel vs.

State of Kerala & Ors., reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 536

recovery is impermissible in the eye of law. Further, Learned Senior

Counsel referring another citation of the Hon'ble High Court of

Himachal Pradesh in S.S. Chaudhary vs. State of H.P. & Ors.

reported in 2022 SCC OnLine HP 900 drawn the attention of this

Court that in the said order, judgments passed by Hon'ble Supreme

Court of India and other High Courts were taken into consideration

and it was the observation of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh

that recovery would be impermissible at this stage although the

petitioner was a Group-B employee of the State Government and

furthermore observed that since the undertaking was executed long

back by the petitioner so, if at this stage recovery is made in that

case serious undue hardships would be caused to the petitioner.

5. The claim of the petitioner was contested by the State-

respondents stating that the petitioner opted for ROP, 1999 and

gave an undertaking and in pursuance of that undertaking the

petitioner is bound to refund the amount. As such, the recovery

memo was valid as per law. It was further submitted that 75% of

gratuity and leave salary have already been paid to the petitioner

and a request was made to the Accountant General to release the

remaining amount of gratuity.

6. The respondents-Accountant General took the plea that

discrepancy was found in pay fixation w.e.f. 01.01.2000 under ROP,

1999 and accordingly, a communication dated 25.04.2023 was sent

to Department with a copy to the petitioner. Learned Counsel for

respondent Nos.5 and 6 submitted that the commuted pension of

the petitioner was released on 18.08.2023 and further action will be

taken after Departmental clarification. It was further submitted that

the Office of respondent Nos.5 and 6 is working as the authorizing

agency.

7. Learned Addl. GA for the State-respondents submitted

that the petitioner would not be covered by the provisions under

Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 rather as a State Government

employee his service conditions would be covered under the Tripura

State Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules. Rules 5 and 6 of the

Tripura State Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2017 and

subsequent pay rules framed by the government time to time

governs the fixation of pay and recovery of excess payments, if

made, of the State government employees. Learned Addl. GA

submitted that in the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court of India in High Court of Punjab and Haryana & Ors. vs.

Jagdev Singh, reported in (2016) 14 SCC 267, Hon'ble the Apex

Court held that recovery from a retired government employee is

permissible if an undertaking was furnished at the time of making

option for a revised pay scale. It was further submitted that

whenever any government employee is moved from one scale to

another revised pay scale in that case he/she is to execute one

option as per the existing rules. Furthermore, the Government of

Tripura has formulated revised pay rules but in the citations

referred by Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner nowhere it is

found that in those citations any discussions were made about the

service rules of a particular State. The petitioner in the present case

has not challenged the PPO on the basis of which his payment was

reduced and since the judgments relied upon by the Learned Senior

Counsel for the petitioner has not been passed on the basis of any

service rules so, the same cannot be binding upon the employees of

the State government. Moreso, the petitioner was a retired Group-B

employee so, the principles laid down in the said judgment cannot

be applied. In this connection, Learned Addl. GA relied upon

another citation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in State of

Punjab & Ors. vs. Ram Lubhaya Bagga & Ors. reported in

(1998) 4 SCC 117 and submitted that in view of para Nos.20, 28

and 33 it is revealed that until and unless the policy and the rule is

not challenged there is no scope to pass any order in favour of the

petitioner. Further, Learned Addl. GA relied upon another citation of

the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Hardev Singh vs. Union of

India & Anr. reported in (2011) 10 SCC 121 wherein in para

No.26, Hon'ble the Apex Court observed as under:

"26. Similarly, in Balco Employees' Union v. Union of India [(2002) 2 SCC 333] it has been held that a court cannot strike down a policy decision taken by the Government merely because it feels that another policy would have been fairer or wiser or more scientific or logical. It is not within the domain of the court to weigh the pros and cons of the policy or to test the degree of its beneficial or equitable disposition."

Relying upon the same Learned Addl. GA submitted that

since the Government of Tripura has formulated pay rules and in

the pay rules it is clearly mentioned regarding execution of

undertaking, that in the event of excess drawal of payment due to

miscalculation, the concerned employee would be bound to refund

the amount and as in the present case the petitioner was a Group-B

employee and he executed option. So, in view of the judgment of

the Hon'ble Supreme Court as cited supra the petitioner cannot take

the benefit of the same until and unless the revised pay rule of the

State is set aside or modified by the State authority. It was further

submitted that as per Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972

as adopted by the State of Tripura and as per Rule 64(3) and Rule

75(2)(b) of the said rules there is scope for recovery of the excess

amount, if made. Learned Addl. GA further submitted that the

citations referred by Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner

would also not be applicable in the given case because those

judgments does not cover the effect of binding service rules or

undertaking given under the State government regulation and the

action taken by the department is within the scope of the relevant

rules of the State. Learned Addl. GA further submitted that 75% of

the gratuity and other retirement benefits including leave salary

have already been disbursed/released in favour of the petitioner

and after the Court's order dated 29.01.2024 in WP(C) No.778 of

2023, instructions were issued to the Account Officer, O/o the

Principal Accountant General (A&E) on 23.02.2024 to release the

remaining amount of Rs.2.5 lakhs of gratuity. The commuted value

of pension was also released on 18.08.2023. Learned Addl. GA also

submitted that the judgments relied upon by the Learned Senior

Counsel for the petitioner did not speak anything regarding the

decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jagdev Singh's

case. Finally, Learned Addl. GA for the State-respondents submitted

that there is no merit in the present writ petition and as such, the

same deserves to be dismissed henceforth.

8. To counter the submissions advanced by Learned Addl.

GA for the State-respondents, Learned Senior Counsel for the

petitioner further submitted that as cited by Learned Addl. GA in

Jagdev Singh(supra), the principle of law laid down in the said

citation would not be applicable in the present case as the subject

matter of the present case is different from that case.

9. Now, after hearing both the sides it is to be decided by

this Court whether the recovery memo issued by respondent No.4

dated 10.01.2025 is legally permissible at this stage?

9.1. Admittedly, the petitioner superannuated from service

on 31.01.2023. It is on record that he received the notice regarding

receiving of excess payment due to wrong pay fixation after

proceeding on retirement. It is also the admitted position that when

the petitioner went on superannuation that time he was in the

category of Group-B employee of the State. According to this Court,

since the petitioner was serving under the State Government

Department so he will not be guided under the provisions of the

Payment of Gratuity Act as because the payment of the gratuity of

the State Government employees is covered by the relevant service

rules of the State.

9.2. Further, it is on record that 75% of gratuity is already

been released in favour of the petitioner and the rest 25% is still

pending for disbursal. The Accountant General in absence of

clarification from the Department or any other communication from

the Finance Department was reluctant to release the balance

amount of payment of gratuity in favour of the petitioner on the

ground that he has drawn excess payment. There cannot be any

divergent opinion that if any Group-B employee receives any excess

payment due to wrong fixation of pay in that case in view of the

undertaking executed by him he is not bound to refund the excess

amount to the Department. Here, in the case at hand, the action of

the Department started after the petitioner went on

superannuation.

10. Now, it is to be decided as to whether at this stage it

would be possible to restrain the Department from recovering any

amount from the petitioner allowing the Department to withhold the

payment of pending gratuity?

10.1. This question is to be answered in the light of law

laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court. As already stated, Learned

Senior Counsel for the petitioner relied upon two judgments of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and an order of Hon'ble High Court

of Himachal Pradesh at the time of hearing and submitted that

every government employee of the State has to submit an option

form for coming under the revised pay scale and has to give

undertaking that he will refund to the Government any amount

which may be drawn by him in excess of what is admissible to him

on account of erroneous fixation of pay in the revised pay structure

as soon as the fact of such excess drawal comes/brought to his

notice.

10.2. Here, in the case at hand, the matter came to the

knowledge of the Accountant General and from para No.8 of the

counter affidavit filed by respondents Nos.5 and 6 it is revealed that

during the course of checking of the pension case some ambiguity

was found in the pay fixation w.e.f. 01.01.2000 as per option under

FR-22(I)(a)(2) vide memo No.F.6(1)-FIN(PC)/98, dated 03.07.2000

issued by the Finance Department, Government of Tripura for

admissible benefit of CAS under ROP, 1999 at SL. No.2.

Accordingly, the office of respondent No.5 communicated the

matter with the concerned Department vide letter dated 25.04.2023

and the commuted value of pension had already been released by

the office of respondent No.5 on 18.08.2023. It is further revealed

that the concerned Department has not furnished any reply as per

the office letter dated 01.05.2023 as well as letter dated

03.10.2024 along with reminder letter dated 09.12.2024.

11. In course of hearing of argument, Learned Senior

Counsel for the petitioner relied upon three citations as stated

above and Learned Addl. GA relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble

Supreme Court of India in Jagdev Singh (supra) and two other

judgments.

12. I have gone through all the citations.

Let us discuss about the relevant paragraphs of the

citations referred by Learned Counsel for the parties.

13. In Rafiq Masih (supra) referred by Learned Senior

Counsel for the petitioner Hon'ble the Apex Court at para No.18,

observed 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 decisions referred to hereinabove, we may, as a ready reference, summarise 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."

Further, in Thomas Daniel(supra), Hon'ble the Apex

Court in para Nos.12 and 13 referred the cases of Syed Abdul

Qadir vs. State of Bihar, (2009) 3 SCC 475 and Rafiq Masih

(supra) respectively and finally allowed the same setting aside the

judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court and the connected

writ Court. The relevant para Nos.12 and 13 are reproduced

hereunder:

"12. In Syed Abdul Qadir v. State of Bihar, (2009) 3 SCC 475 excess payment was sought to be recovered which was made to the appellants-teachers on account of mistake and wrong interpretation of prevailing Bihar Nationalised Secondary School (Service Conditions) Rules, 1983. The appellants therein contended that even if it were to be held that the appellants were not entitled to the benefit of additional increment on promotion, the excess amount should not be recovered from them, it having been paid without any misrepresentation or fraud on their part. The Court held that the appellants cannot be held responsible in such a situation and recovery of the excess payment should not be ordered, especially when the employee has subsequently retired. The court observed that in general parlance, recovery is prohibited by courts where there exists no misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee and when the excess payment has been made by applying a wrong interpretation/understanding of a Rule or Order. It was held thus:

"59. Undoubtedly, the excess amount that has been paid to the appellant teachers was not because of any misrepresentation or fraud on their part and the appellants also had no knowledge that the amount that was being paid to them was more than what they were entitled to. It would not be out of place to mention here that the Finance Department had, in its counter- affidavit, admitted that it was a bona fide mistake on their part. The excess payment made was the result of wrong interpretation of the Rule that was applicable to them, for which the appellants cannot be held responsible. Rather, the whole confusion was because of inaction, negligence and carelessness of the officials concerned of the Government of Bihar. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant teachers submitted that majority of the beneficiaries have either retired or are on the verge of it. Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case at hand and to avoid any hardship to the appellant teachers, we are of the view that no recovery of the amount that has been paid in excess to the appellant teachers should be made."

13. In State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), (2015) 4 SCC 334 wherein this court examined the validity of an order passed by the State to recover the monetary gains wrongly extended to the beneficiary employees in excess of their entitlements without any fault or misrepresentation at the behest of the recipient. This Court considered situations of hardship caused to an employee, if recovery is directed to reimburse the employer and disallowed the same, exempting the beneficiary employees from such recovery. It was held thus:

"8. As between two parties, if a determination is rendered in favour of the party, which is the weaker of the two, without any serious detriment to the other (which is truly a welfare State), the issue resolved would be in consonance with the concept of justice, which is assured to the citizens of India, even in the Preamble of the Constitution of India. The right to recover being pursued by the employer, will have to be compared, with the effect of the recovery on the employee concerned. If the effect of the recovery from the employee concerned would be, more unfair, more wrongful, more improper, and more unwarranted, than the corresponding right of the employer to recover the amount, then it would be iniquitous and arbitrary, to effect the recovery. In such a situation, the employee's right would outbalance, and therefore eclipse, the right of the employer to recover.

xxx xxx xxx

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 decisions referred to hereinabove, we may, as a ready reference, summarise 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."

Again, in Jagdev Singh(supra) referred by Learned

Addl. GA, the Hon'ble Apex Court in para Nos.8 to 13 observed as

under:

"8. The order of the High Court has been challenged in these proceedings. From the record of the proceedings, it is evident that when the respondent opted for the revised pay scale, he furnished an undertaking to the effect that he would be liable to refund any excess payment made to him. In the counter- affidavit which has been filed by the respondent in these proceedings, this position has been specifically admitted [State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih, (2015) 4 SCC 334 : (2015) 2 SCC (Civ) 608 : (2015) 2 SCC (L&S) 33] . Subsequently, when the Rules were revised and notified on 7-5-2003 it was found that a payment in excess had been made to the respondent. On 18-2-2004, the excess payment was sought to be recovered in terms of the undertaking.

9. The submission of the respondent, which found favour with the High Court, was that a payment which has been made in excess cannot be recovered from an employee who has retired from the service of the State. This, in our view, will have no application to a situation such as the present where an undertaking was specifically furnished by the officer at the time when his pay was initially revised accepting that any payment found to have been made in excess would be liable to be adjusted. While opting for the benefit of the revised pay scale, the respondent was clearly on notice of the fact that a future refixation or revision may warrant an adjustment of the excess payment, if any, made.

10. In State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih [State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih, (2015) 4 SCC 334 : (2015) 2 SCC (Civ) 608 :

(2015) 2 SCC (L&S) 33] this Court held that while it is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship where payments have mistakenly been made by an employer, in the following situations, a recovery by the employer would be impermissible in law : (SCC pp. 334-35)

(i) Recovery from employees belonging to Class III and Class IV service (or Group C and Group D service).

(ii) Recovery from retired employees, or employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery.

(iii) Recovery from 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.

(emphasis supplied)

11. The principle enunciated in Proposition (ii) above cannot apply to a situation such as in the present case. In the present case, the officer to whom the payment was made in the first instance was clearly placed on notice that any payment found to have been made in excess would be required to be refunded. The officer furnished an undertaking while opting for the revised pay scale. He is bound by the undertaking.

12. For these reasons, the judgment of the High Court which set aside the action for recovery is unsustainable. However, we are of the view that the recovery should be made in reasonable instalments. We direct that the recovery be made in equated monthly instalments spread over a period of two years.

13. The judgment [Jagdev Singh v. State of Haryana, CWP No. 3999 of 2005, decided on 1-8-2005 (P&H)] of the High Court is accordingly set aside. The civil appeal shall stand allowed in the above terms. There shall be no order as to costs."

14. From the revised pay rules of the State it appears that

at the time of movement from one scale to another as per the

prevailing rule, any employee of the State Government is/was

supposed to execute option form/undertaking. In the present case

also the petitioner submitted option form/undertaking to the

respective department during his movement from one scale to

another. In the case relied upon by the respondents-State it

appears that on the basis of undertaking given by the petitioner of

that case, the Hon'ble Apex Court set aside the order of the High

Court and observed that the judgment of the High Court which set

aside the action for recovery was unsustainable. Ultimately, the

Hon'ble Apex Court passed an order for recovery in reasonable

installments.

15. Here, in the case at hand, after hearing both the sides

and also after perusal of the documents relied upon by the parties it

appears that the petitioner being a Group-B employee of the State

Government submitted option form to the Department that in the

event of drawal of excess payment, he should be bound to refund

the same. But, in the judgments relied upon by the petitioner there

was no fact regarding the execution of any option form by the

concerned employees. So, the principle laid down in the aforesaid

judgments relied upon by the petitioner cannot be applied in the

present case. Furthermore, it is also not the case of the petitioner

that the petitioner is an employee under the category of Group-C or

Group-D of the State Government rather it is on record that he

superannuated from service holding a post under Group-B category

under the State-Government. So, the recovery notice issued by

respondent No.4 cannot be said to be legally unsustainable at this

stage.

16. As such, considering the facts and circumstances of the

case no relief can be granted in favour of the present petitioner.

Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner in course of hearing of

argument although asserted some other points but those points are

not at all relevant for decision of the present writ petition and this

Court does not think it prudent to discuss all those points at this

stage for the sake of decision of this writ petition.

In view of the above, the present writ petition bears no

merit. Accordingly, the same stands dismissed. However, there shall

be no order as to cost.

17. It is necessary to be mentioned herein that there was no

fault on the part of the petitioner concerned and there was no fraud

or misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner in regard to

fixation of his pay rather it was the Department who fixed the time

to time pay structure of the petitioner concerned and by this time

the petitioner has proceeded on superannuation. So, considering

the facts and circumstances of this case it would be prudent that

the respondent department may adjust the unpaid amount of

gratuity with the proposed recovered amount and after adjustment

the balance amount, if still remains unpaid, would be recovered by

the respondent department within a period of 6(six) years in equal

installments that too without any interest.

JUDGE

Snigdha

MOUMIT Digitally signed by MOUMITA DATTA

A DATTA Date: 2025.07.31 15:30:32 +05'30'