High Court
Case Details
WP(C) 2076/2013 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN J U D G M E N T AND O R D E R (ORAL) and Mr. J. Handique, learned Government Advocate, Assam for the respondents. Heard Mr. A. M. Buzarbaruah, learned counsel for the petitioners 2. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners have questioned the decision of the respondents in making de duction from their retirement dues of certain amounts which is stated to have be en drawn as excess salary by the petitioners. 3. Case of the petitioners is that they had served as Secretaries i n different Gaon Panchayats under various Zilla Parishads and after rendering se rvice for fairly long periods, they had superannuated from service. 4. Initially, the pay scale of Lower Division Assistants was fixed in the pay scale starting from Rs. 275.00 and that of Tax Collectors from Rs. 22 0.00. Pay of the Secretaries was in the pay scale starting from Rs. 220.00. Post of Gaon Panchayat Secretary is considered to be higher in rank than that of Low er Division Assistant but the pay scale was lower. Representation was submitted for rectifying the anomaly by enhancing the pay scale of Secretaries. Authoritie s in the Panchayat and Rural Development Department on due consideration, enhanc ed the pay of the Gaon Panchayat Secretaries to the pay scale starting from Rs. 275.00 with a special pay of Rs. 25.00, which meant that the pay scale of Gaon P anchayat Secretaries became higher than that of Lower Division Assistants. 5. Following revision of pay in the year 1985, the pay scale of the Gaon Panchyat Secretaries was revised but the revision was effected on the basi s of the original pay scale drawn by the Gaon Panchayat Secretaries i.e. Rs. 220 .00 instead of the corrected pay scale of Rs.275.00. On that basis, the revised pay was fixed at Rs.494.00 per month. When it was brought to the notice of the a uthorities, necessary rectification was made by revising the pay scale taking th e corrected pay scale of Rs. 275.00 as the base pay scale. Accordingly, the pay of the petitioners was revised and fixed at Rs.566.00 per month instead of Rs. 4 94.00. From July, 1981, the petitioners were paid salary at Rs. 566.00 per month till the dates of their respective superannuation.
Decision
6. After their superannuation, the petitioners were paid their reti rement dues. At the time of payment, petitioners found that substantial amounts were deducted/recovered from their retirement benefits, the details of which hav e been mentioned in paragraphs 23 and 24 of the writ petition. Such deduction/re covery were made on the ground that there was excess/overdrawal of pay by the pe titioners from July, 1981. According to the authorities, petitioners had drawn s alary at Rs. 566.00 per month as against Rs.494.00 from July, 1981 till the date s of their superannuation and, therefore, there was excess drawal of salary of R s. 72.00 (Rs.566-494) every month since July, 1981, which was recovered from the retirement dues. 7. Aggrieved, petitioners have approached this Court by filing the present writ petition seeking the relief as indicated above. 8. has been justified and the contentions of the petitioners have been disputed. In the affidavit filed by respondent No. 6, the impugned action 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is no que stion of overdrawal or excess payment of salary by the petitioners. It was a mis take committed by the authorities while revising the pay scale of the petitioner s by taking the initial pay scale of the petitioners at Rs.220.00 though it was subsequently corrected to Rs.275.00 with special pay of Rs.25.00. Revised pay of the petitioners was correctly assessed subsequently and paid at Rs. 566.00 with effect from July, 1981. Therefore, recovery was not justified. Moreover, the pe titioners were not put to notice before making the impugned recovery. Such recov ery could not have been made from the retirement dues of the petitioners, more p articularly from the gratuity amount. He, therefore, submits that the Court shou ld interfere in the matter and direct the respondents to refund the amounts unau thorizedly deducted from the retirement dues of the petitioners. 10. Mr. J. Handique, learned Government Advocate opposes the submiss ions made on behalf of the petitioners and supports the decision taken by the Go vernment. 11. Submissions made have been considered. 12. oners may be briefly noticed, which is as under:- Before proceeding further, the statement furnished by the petiti Sl No. Name of the employee Date of appointment/joining Date of retirement Amount sanctioned as pensionary benefits Amount recovered from pensionary b enefits Amount received as pensionary benefits 1 Sri Dinesh Chandra Das 01-10-1964 as Secretary at Rajapukhuri Baranti Rang amati G. P. under Kamrup Z.P. 31-10-2006 Rs.2,21,192/- Rs.1,85,324/- Rs .35,868/- 2. Sri Sarbeswar Thakuria 01-05-1969 as Secretary at Dakshin Bangaon G.P. un der Kamrup Z.P. 30.09.2006 Rs.1,68,976/- Rs.1,82,838/- (-) Rs.13,862/- 3. Sri Dina Nath Saikia as Secretary at Ghoramara G.P. under Sonitpur Z.P. 30.11.2006 Rs.1,97,323/- Rs.99,925/- Rs.97,398/- 4. Sri Suren Das 01-08-1964 as Secretary at Pachim Banshal G.P. under Kamrup Z.P. 31.03.2002 Rs.1,06,119/- Rs.72,954/- Rs.33,165/- 5. Sri Khagendra Hasda As Secretary at Jhawdanga G.P. under Dhubri Z.P. 02 .05.2012 Rs.628901/- Rs.4,03,429 Rs.225472/- 6. Late Narayan Talukdar 01-02-1965 as Secretary at 66 No. Santipur G.P. und er Nalbari Z.P. 29.02.2004 Rs.1,16,551/- Rs.86,085/- Rs.30,466/- 7. Haidar Hussain 02-01-1966 as Secretary at Pub-Natun Dehar G.P. under Nalb ari Z.P. 31.05.2009 Rs.3,81,654/- Rs.3,63,602/- Rs.18,052/- 8. Sri Arabinda Pathak 02-02-1962 as Secretary at Pachim Chayagaon G.P. unde r Kamrup Z.P. 30.04.2001 Rs.1,47,477/- Rs.23,585/- Rs.123,892/- Admittedly, the recoveries were made after the petitioners retir 13. ed from service and from their retirement dues. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shyam Babu Verma and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors. reported in (1994 ) 2 SCC 521, which was a case of recovery of salary paid in excess, held that si nce the petitioners had rendered services and had received the higher pay scale due to no fault of theirs, it would only be just and proper not to recover any e xcess amount which had already been paid to them. Accordingly, it was directed t hat no steps should be taken to recover or to adjust any excess amount paid to t he petitioners due to the fault of the respondents, the petitioners being in no way responsible for the same. 14. In the present case also, respondents have not been able to plac e any materials on record to show that fixation of pay at Rs. 566.00 per month i n respect of the petitioners w.e.f. July, 1981 was erroneous or was fixed on the basis of incorrect principles. As noticed above, the recoveries were made after retirement of the petitioners. No notice or hearing was given to the petitioner s before such deductions. 15. That being the position, the petition deserves to be allowed. Th e deduction made by the respondents from the retirement dues of the petitioners cannot be sustained. Accordingly, it is hereby directed that the respondents, more pa 16. rticularly the Commissioner, Panchayat and Rural Development Department, Governm ent of Assam, shall examine the case of each of the petitioners and thereafter p ass appropriate order(s) for re-fund of the amounts deducted from the retirement dues of the petitioners. Such exercise shall be carried out within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 17. Writ petition is disposed of.