Non-Payment Of Withheld Pension Gives Right To Approach Court, Even If there is Delay : Calcutta High Court

Background Facts

Harendra Nath Bishayi's (Petitioner) late wife served as an Assistant Teacher in a school in West Bengal. Petitioner's wife passed away while in service on April 8, 2019. So the petitioner was entitled to receive retiral benefits following his wife's death. However, the authorities demanded that petitioner deposit a sum of Rs.81,592/- by way of Treasury Challan before disbursing the retiral benefits. This demand was based on an alleged overdrawal of funds. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner filed a Writ Petition.

The petitioner contended that the demand for the deposit was unjust, unnecessary and fell within the category of impermissible recovery, given the nature of his case. The petitioner argued that the delay in approaching the court did not affected the rights of third parties, so he had the right to approach the court.

On the other hand, it was contended by the Respondent (State of West Bengal & Others) that the demand to deposit the specified amount was justified under regulation governing the disbursement of retiral benefits. The respondents emphasized the importance of adhering to administrative procedures and protocols in matters related to the disbursement of government benefits. They argued that the demand for deposit was in accordance with established administrative practices and was not arbitrary or unjust.

Findings of the Court

The court acknowledged the petitioner's right to seek relief from the demand for deposit, despite a delay in approaching the court. The court relied on the case of Union of India vs. Tarsem Singh wherein the Supreme Court emphasized that relief may be granted to a petitioner as long as it does not affect the rights of third parties and further held that individuals who suffer due to the non-payment of withheld amounts have the right to approach the court for appropriate relief, even if there had been a delay in doing so.

The court relied on the case of Shyam Babu Verma & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. wherein the Supreme Court had provided the relevant legal principles regarding the adjustment of overdrawn pay against retirement dues.

The court held that the recovery demanded from the petitioner fell within the category of impermissible recovery, given the nature of the case and the applicable legal principles. The court relied on the case of State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih wherein the Supreme Court outlined the situations where recoveries by employers were impermissible, including recovery from retired employees or those due to retire within a year of the recovery order.

The court directed the respondents to release the amount demanded from the petitioner along with interest.

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition was disposed of.

Case No. : W.P.A. No. 4704 of 2024

Case Name: Harendra Nath Bishayi vs State of West Bengal & Ors.

Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr. Banshi Badan Maity

Counsel for the Respondent : Mr. Debnarayan Patra, Mr. Aviroop Bhattacharyya.