IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No.681 of 2011
Gopi Krishna Deo ... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & ors. ... ... Respondents
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.R. PRASAD
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. K.P. Deo, Advocate
For the State : Mr. D.K. Dubey, G.P.I
-----
02/11.07.2011
. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned
counsel appearing for the State.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner, working as an Assistant Teacher in the Govt. Middle School, Sarsa,
Jasidih, Deoghar , got retired on 31.12.1998. Subsequently, after six months of
his retirement, a sum of Rs.27,921/- was adjusted from the amount to be paid
towards Leave Encashment and Dearness Allowances on the ground that the
petitioner had drawn the said amount in excess for the period from 01.03.1989
to 31.12.1998.
According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner
as soon as came to know about it, did represent his case before the
respondent No.5-District Superintendent of Education, Deoghar, stating therein
that, Rs.27,921/- had wrongly been deducted from his retiral benefits, but no
decision was taken on his representation. But now a letter has been issued to
the petitioner by the District Superintendent of Education, wherein the
petitioner has been called upon to put forth his case against the action
contemplated to be taken for revision of pension, as on account of wrong
fixation of pay, the pension has wrongly been fixed on higher scale, but the
authority cannot now revise the pension by taking plea that the petitioner had
earlier drawn a sum of Rs.27,921/- in excess whereby there had been wrong
fixation of pay as the said fixation had been made without there being any
misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner and as such the respondent was
not justified in deducting the amount from retiral dues, in view of the decision
rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sahib Ram Vs. State
of Haryana & Ors. (1995 Supp. (1) Supreme Court Cases 18) and also in
the case of Most. Sumitra Devi Vs. State of Jharkhand through Chief
Engineer, Road Construction Department & Ors. [ 2008 (1) JLJR 486
(F.B.)] and under this situation, the respondent be directed to refund the said
amount to the petitioner forthwith.
As against this, Mr. Dubey, Learned G.P.-I submits that the
amount has been deducted way back in the year 1999 and since then the
petitioner did not pursue the matter in any court of law and hence this
application is fit to be dismissed on the ground of latches only.
This submission was replied by the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner, by taking the stand that it is true that the order of deduction has
been made in the year 1999, but against that order ,a representation had been
made before the District Superintendent of Education, Deoghar on which no
decision was taken, which would be evident from the order, as contained in
Letter No.491 dated 02.04.2011 (Annexure-E to the counter affidavit filed on
behalf of the respondent Nos.4 and 5). In spite of that the authority is now
contemplating to revise the amount of pension which is being paid to the
petitioner on the plea that the petitioner is drawing excess pension on account
of wrong fixation of pay and thus, the order passed earlier will have
consequential effect affecting the right and interest of the petitioner and in that
event, application cannot be rejected on the ground of latches.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it is admitted
position that a sum of Rs. 27,921/- has been deducted from the retiral benefits
of the petitioner on the plea that the petitioner had taken payment in excess on
account of the fact that three increments had wrongly been given to the
petitioner, but those increments had never been given on misrepresentation of
the petitioner, rather the authority on his own had taken decision of giving
three increments to the petitioner and in that view of the matter, the amount,
which is said to have been drawn in excess, has wrongly been deducted from
the retiral benefits, in view of the decision rendered in the case of Sahib Ram
(Supra) wherein it has specifically been held that when the amount is drawn in
excess without there being any misrepresentation, that amount is not liable to
be deducted from the retiral benefits of the petitioner. The same principle has
been followed in the case of Most. Sumitra (Supra) and, therefore, any
adjustment of Rs.27,921/ from the Leave Encashment is illegal.
So far submission advanced on behalf of the State that the
petitioner is not entitled to get any relief on account of latches, as the action of
the respondent deducting the amount is being challenged after lapse of ten
years is concerned, I do not find substance in the facts of the case. Had the
matter been confined only to the extent of adjustment of the amount, decision
have gone in favour of the State but the fact is that the authority is now
contemplating to give consequential effect to, of the order, under which a sum
of Rs.27,921/- was deducted which will certainly affect the present right of the
petitioner and in this situation, the petitioner does have every right to challenge
the order which was passed even 11 years before.
Accordingly, District Superintendent of Education, Deoghar is
directed to refund the said amount to the petitioner within a period of six weeks
from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order
Accordingly, this writ application is allowed.
(R.R. Prasad, J.)
Ravi/