Nawal Kishore Paswan, aged about – 61 years, S/o Late Bhuneshwar Paswan, R/o Mission v. 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Chief Secretary-Government of Jharkhand, having office at
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI (Letters Patent Appellate Jurisdiction) LPA No. 585 of 2023 Nawal Kishore Paswan, aged about – 61 years, S/o Late Bhuneshwar Paswan, R/o Mission Gali Road No.1, Kanke Road, P.O. – Ranchi University, P.S. – Gonda, District – Ranchi ......Appellant Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Chief Secretary-Government of Jharkhand, having office at Project Building, P.O. – Dhurwa, P.S. – Jagannathpur, District – Ranchi 3. The Principal Secretary – Department of Home, Government of Jharkhand, having office at Project Building, P.O. – Dhurwa, P.S. – Jagannathpur, District – Ranchi 4. The Director General of Police – Jharkhand, having office at Police Headquarters, P.O. – Dhurwa, P.S. – Jagannathpur, District – Ranchi 5. The Deputy Inspector General of Police (Budget) – Jharkhand, having office at Police Headquarters, P.O. – Dhurwa, P.S. – Jagannathpur, District – Ranchi 6. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Special Branch-Jharkhand, having office at Police Headquarters, P.O. – Dhurwa, P.S. – Jagannathpur, District – Ranchi 7. The Superintendent of Police (Establishment), Special Branch, Jharkhand, having office at Police Headquarters, P.O. – Dhurwa, P.S. – Jagannathpur, District – Ranchi 8. The Principal Accountant General (A&E) – Jharkhand, having office at North Office Para, P.O. & P.S. – Doranda, District – Ranchi 9. Senior Accounts Officer, Principal Accountant General (A&E) – Jharkhand, having office at North Office Para, P.O. & P.S. – Doranda, District – Ranchi 10. The Treasury Officer – Ranchi, having office at Collectorate, Kutchery Road, P.O. – G.P.O., P.S. – Kotwali, District – Ranchi --------------- ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY For the Appellant For the State
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Gaurang Jajodia, Advocate : Mr. Mrinal Kanti Roy, GA – I : Mr. Chandan Tiwari, AC to GA - I --------------- Order No. 04/ Dated: 02nd January 2024 Per, Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J. Heard the learned counsels for the parties. 2. This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed against order dated 08th
Decision
August 2023 passed in W.P.(S) No.1308 of 2023 whereby the writ petition 2 filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. 3. The writ petition was filed for the following reliefs: - “a) For issuance of appropriate writ(s) in the nature of Certiorari quashing memo no. 329 dated 19.07.2022 (Annexure-8) issued by Respondent No. 7 whereby and where under the Petitioner has been directed to deposit Rs. 8,00,000/- in lump sum with the Accounts Division of Special Branch within one week of receipt of the letter. b) For issuance of appropriate writ(s) in the nature of Certiorari quashing memo no. 499 dated 21.11.2022 (Annexure-10) issued by Respondent No. 7 whereby and where under the Respondent No. 9 has been requested to recover Rs. 8,00,000/- from the Dearness Allowance of Pension of the Petitioner in installments. c) For issuance of appropriate writ(s) in the nature of Certiorari quashing memo no. 2332 dated 14.12.2022 (Annexure-11) issued by Respondent No. 9 whereby and where under the Respondent No. 10 has been directed to recover Rs. 8,00,000/- from the Dearness Allowance of Pension of the Petitioner in installments. d) For issuance of appropriate writ(s) in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to adjust the sum of Rs. 8,00,000/- granted to the Petitioner for the treatment of his son from the bills submitted by the Petitioner. e) For issuance of appropriate writ(s) in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to refund the entire amount deducted from the pension of Petitioner along with interest. AND f) During pendency of the present writ petition the respondents may be reinstated from making any further recovery from the pension of the petitioner.” 4. The findings of the learned writ Court is as under: - “6. The petitioner as noted above had superannuated on 31.7.2021 and pursuant to No Dues Certificate given the petitioner was granted all the retiral benefits and is also continuing to draw pension. It is the grievance of the petitioner that by the impugned orders, which are under challenge in the present writ application, an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- was sought to be recovered from the petitioner, which was given as an advance for the medical treatment of his son. The impugned orders clearly reveal that the amount which was given to the petitioner was not a grant but by way of an advance and infact the counter affidavit further seems to enhance such contention as it is stated that the son of the petitioner was aged more than 25 years and was not dependent upon the petitioner and therefore he was not entitled to medical reimbursement. The impugned orders as well as the statements made in the counter affidavit clearly reveal that the amount of Rs.8,00,000/-which has been sought to be recovered from the pensionary benefits of the petitioner in installments appears to have been extended by way of an advance and the same cannot be wiped out only on the ground that the same was a grant. 7. The impugned orders therefore have been correctly passed and I do not find any justification in interfering with the same and consequently this writ petition stands disposed of.” 5. While assailing the order impugned passed by the learned writ Court, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- was duly disbursed to the appellant after due verification for the purposes of treatment of his son for kidney transplant and after his 3 retirement, the same was sought to be recovered from the dearness allowance payable on the pensionary benefits. The learned counsel has submitted that at the time of retirement, ‘no dues certificate’ was duly issued and after the retirement, the respondents were not justified in passing the order of recovery. The learned counsel has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “State of Punjab and others Vs. Rafiq Masih” reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 to submit that even if the disbursement was not in accordance with law, the respondents could not have recovered the said amount as such recovery after a considerable period that too after retirement is not justified. 6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents on the other hand while opposing the prayer of the appellant has submitted that Rs.8,00,000/- was given to the appellant only by way of advance and the appellant was not entitled for reimbursement on account of medical charges for treatment of his son who was admittedly more than 25 years of age at the relevant point of time. The learned counsel submits that the disbursement was only by way of advance and the order of adjustment has been rightly passed as the appellant was not entitled to the said amount. He has also submitted that the judgment passed in the case of “Rafiq Masih” (supra) will not apply as the appellant was at the much higher post as compared to those persons whose cases have been considered in the case of “Rafiq Masih” (supra). The appellant was in the post of Sub-Inspector of police which is a class – II post. 7. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties, this Court finds that it is not in dispute that the age of the son of the appellant was more than 25 years on the date when an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- was disbursed for his treatment, rather he was 29 years of age. In such circumstances, the appellant was not entitled for the medical reimbursement for treatment of his son. After disbursement of the said amount, the appellant superannuated from service on 31st July 2021 and the order impugned before the learned writ Court was dated 21st November 2022 by which a recovery was sought to be made to the extent of Rs.8,00,000/- from the dearness allowance of the pension of the appellant in installments. 8. Considering the admitted position that the son of the appellant was more than 25 years of age on the date of disbursement of Rs.8,00,000/- and 4 the appellant was not entitled for medical reimbursement for the treatment of his son, this Court is of the considered view that there was no illegality in directing an order of recovery. Issuance of ‘no dues certificate’ to the appellant is of no consequence and the disbursement of Rs.8,00,000/- was only by way of advance which was not admissible to the appellant for treatment of his son. Therefore, such recovery directed to be made by the respondents from the dearness allowance of pension payable to the appellant is in accordance with law. 9. So far as the judgment passed in the case of “Rafiq Masih” (supra) is concerned, the same does not apply to the facts and circumstances of this case in as much as the appellant being the Sub-Inspector of police was working in Class – II post and it cannot be said that the appellant was not aware of the applicable provisions and the rules so far as entitlement on account of medical treatment of his son is concerned. This Court has gone through the order impugned passed by the learned writ Court and finds no illegality in the impugned order. 10. Accordingly, this Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed. (Shree Chandrashekhar, A.C.J.) (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Saurav/ -