IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI.
W.P.(S) No. 4536 of 2004
...
Balram Jha ... Petitioner
-V e r s u s-
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Block Development officer, Ratu Block, Ranchi
3. the District Treasury Officer, Ranchi
4. the Accountant General, Jharkhand, Ranchi ... Respondents
...
CORAM: - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.G.R. PATNAIK.
...
For the Petitioner : - Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the Respondent No. 4 : - Mr. Sudarshan Srivastave, Advocate.
...
3/05.04.2010
Petitioner in this writ application has prayed for a direction upon the
respondents to restrain them from recovering a sum of Rs. 1,00,871/- from his
pension and for issuance a direction to the respondents to pay him the amount of
pension regularly.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the
Respondent No. 4.
3. It appears, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Respondent No.
4 namely the Accountant General, Jharkhand, Ranchi in which it has been explained
that though the petitioner’s admissible gratuity, calculated on the basis of his last pay
drawn, was Rs. 61,875/- but due to an error, the provisional gratuity which was paid
to the petitioner was a sum of Rs. 1,62,746/- and thereby the petitioner had received
a sum of Rs. 1,00,871/- as excess payment. It has also been explained that the
petitioner has retired from service on 31.01.1997 i.e. before the actual effective date
(01.04.1997) of the monetary benefits for revision of pension and gratuity.
Therefore, even as per Government resolution dated 22.12.1999, no arrear is
admissible to those employees who retired during the period from 01.01.1996 to
31.03.1997. The petitioner therefore being not entitled to any amount of gratuity
beyond the actual payable amount of Rs. 61,875/-, is liable to refund the excess paid
amount and the petitioner’s ex-employer is therefore entitled to recover such amount
from the petitioner’s pension as per the statutory provisions of the respondents’ Rules
in this context.
4. There appears no dispute raised by the petitioner to the above contention of
the Respondent No. 4.
5. Considering the above facts, there appears no merit in this application.
Accordingly, this writ application is dismissed. However, the concerned authorities
of the respondents are directed to ensure that the payment of admissible pension is
regularly made to the petitioner if the amount sought to be deducted, is finally
recovered from the petitioner’s pension.
(D.G.R. Patnaik, J.)
Birendra/