Consent Certificate Does Not Absolve Authorities From Basing Deductions From Retiral Benefits On Legally Valid Grounds.: Manipur High Court
A single bench of the Manipur High Court comprising of Justice Ahanthembimol Singh while deciding a Writ Petition in the case of K Yangla vs State of Manipur & Ors has held that Consent Certificate given by employee agreeing to deductions of Government Dues from retiral benefits does not absolve authorities from basing such deduction on legally valid and tenable...
A single bench of the Manipur High Court comprising of Justice Ahanthembimol Singh while deciding a Writ Petition in the case of K Yangla vs State of Manipur & Ors has held that Consent Certificate given by employee agreeing to deductions of Government Dues from retiral benefits does not absolve authorities from basing such deduction on legally valid and tenable grounds.
Background Facts
K. Yangla (Petitioner) was serving as Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police (ASI) in the Manipur Police Department. In 2010, a Departmental Enquiry was initiated against him and based on the enquiry report, a punishment of withholding his increment for a period of 3 years from the date of suspension from service was imposed on the Petitioner. The Petitioner retired from service in 2016 and the Office of the Accountant General (A&E), Manipur issued an order of gratuity payment in 2017 for a sum of Rs. 1.86 Lakh. However, the order provided for recovering of an amount of Rs. 7.21 Lakh from the gratuity payable to the Petitioner allegedly on account of over-payment of pay and allowances to the Petitioner. The order further provided for deduction of Rs. 1.89 Lakh from the total gratuity amount payable to the Petitioner.
Office of the Principal Accountant General provided that the reason for issuing the above-mentioned order was that there were irregularities in the pay fixed for Petitioner at the time of promotion to the post of ASI. Further, full pay and allowances were released to the Petitioner in contravention to the order of the Disciplinary Enquiry following which increment for a period of 3 years should've been withheld.
Thus, the writ petition was filed challenging the order of payment of gratuity.
It was contended by the Petitioner that he was entitled to enjoy the full gratuity amount as he never committed any misrepresentation or fraud. If there was any fault on the part of the Petitioner regarding drawing of his monthly pay and allowances, the concerned authorities should've informed him about the same. Further the order of recovery of excess payment cannot be made after the Petitioner has retired.
On the other hand, it was contended by the Respondent that there were irregularities in the fixation of pay of the Petitioner due to which there was over-payment to the Petitioner. Further the punishment of withholding increment for a period of 3 years was imposed on the Petitioner but full pay and allowances were released to the Petitioner in contravention to the order of the departmental enquiry.
It was further contended by the Respondent that the Petitioner had given a Consent Certificate and Undertaking to recover any over payment from the final pension/gratuity. The Consent Certificate was given by the Petitioner after his retirement and for settlement of his pension. Further the Undertaking was given as it was mandated by Manipur Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2010.
Findings of the Court
The court observed that the Respondents had contended that the pay of the Petitioner was fixed at Rs. 4500 instead of Rs. 4400 when the Petitioner was promoted to the post of ASI. The court however remarked that there was no material to substantiate that the Petitioner's pay as ASI was fixed at Rs. 4,500. Thus, there was no excess payment which had been made to the Petitioner on account of any wrong fixation of his pay scale and the deductions made by the Respondents from the retiral benefits of the Petitioner were not permissible under law.
The court further observed that with respect to the overpayment due to non-withholding of increments due to the Petitioner, the authorities cannot be permitted to recover any excess amount from the retiral benefits of the Petitioner especially after the retirement of the Petitioner from service.
The court further held that with respect to the deductions made in pursuance of a Consent Certificate, the Orissa High Court in the Case no. WP(C) No. 574 of 2021 had already considered the issue and held that deductions cannot be made based on the consent/self-declaration as retiring officers are bound to sign the said letters against their will for speedy disposal of their pension proposals.
The court further held that
It is no doubt true that that writ petitioner gave his consent in the aforesaid Consent Certificate, agreeing to the deduction of any Government dues from his retirement gratuity or from other pension benefits payable to him, however, merely because his consent was given by him did not absolve the authorities from basing such deduction on legally valid and tenable grounds
The court also held that an employee at the time of retirement would not be in a position to negotiate and would be inclined to give their consent so that their retirement benefits are processed expeditiously. Thus, the mere fact that the Petitioner gave his consent was not sufficient to hold it against him and give the authorities a clean chit for their arbitrary acts.
With the aforesaid observations, the court allowed the writ petition
Case No.- WP(C) No. 112 of 2019
Case Name- K Yangla vs State of Manipur & Ors
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Man) 2
Counsel for the Petitioner- Mr. Kh. Tarunkumar, senior Advocate asstd. by Mr. Jemon, Advocate
Counsel for Respondents- Mr. Niranjan Sanasam, GA & Mr. S. Suresh, Advocate