JUDGEMENT
Moushumi Bhattacharya, J. -
(1.)Affidavit of service filed in court today is taken on record.
(2.)The writ petitioner served as an assistant teacher in a school and retired from the said school on August 31, 2002. The writ petitioner is aggrieved by reason of deduction in his basic pay by pension payment order issued by the concerned authority on May 27, 2008. The amount deducted is Rs.36,438 under the category of "overdrawal in pay etc.".
(3.)The issue whether overdrawal of pay can be adjusted against retirement dues of an employee has been settled in Shyam Babu Verma and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. reported in (1994) 2 SCC 521 and also in a later decision of Syed Abdul Qadir and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors. reported in (2009) 3 SCC 475 and in State of Punjab and Ors. v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Ors. reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 . A judgement of a co-ordinate Bench of this court in the case of Shiba Rani Maity v. The State of West Bengal in WP No. 29979 (W) of 2016 as well as Biswanath Ghosh v. The State of West Bengal in WP No. 27562 (W) of 2016 has categorically held that in a case where no rights have accrued in favour of a third party, the petitioner who has suffered by reason of non-payment of amount withheld on the grounds of an alleged overdrawal has a right to approach this court for appropriate relief. The relevant paragraphs from WP No. 29979 (W) of 2016 are set out below:
"(15) The only other question is that whether the writ petition should be entertained in spite of delay of about 17 years in approaching this Court. In a judgment and order dated 6 September, 2010 delivered in MAT 1933 of 2010 passed by a Division Bench of this Court and held that although the petitioner had approached the Court after a lapse of nine years, no third party right had accrued because of the delay and it was only the petitioner who suffered due to non-payment of the withheld amount on account of alleged over-drawal. Accordingly the Division Bench set aside the order of the Learned Single Judge by which the writ petition had been dismissed only on the ground of delay.
(16) Following the Division Bench judgment of this Court adverted to above, I hold that it is only the petitioner who suffered by reason of the wrongful withholding of the aforesaid sum from his retiral benefits. Although there has been a delay of about 17 years in approaching this Court, the same has not given rise to any third party right and allowing this writ application is not going to affect the right of any third party. It may also be noted that the Hon'ble Apex Court observed in its decision in the case of Union of India vs. Tarmen Singh, (2008) 3 SCC 648 that relief may be granted to a writ petitioner in spite of the delay if it does not affect the right of third parties."
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.