BADARISHA NONGKHAR Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The erstwhile writ petitioner who expired during the pendency of the writ petition and now substituted by his wife, had approached this Court assailing the order dtd. 7/8/2020, whereby it was given therein, that in the preparation of the pension papers along with Service Book and other materials, it was informed that there was an over-drawal of pay amounting to Rs.1,18,965.00 (Rupees One Lakh Eighteen Thousand Nine Hundred Sixty-Five only), which was recovered from his gratuity amount.

(2.) The original petitioner was an employee in the office of the Assistant Registrar of Societies, Nongstoin, and retired as Upper Division Assistant (UDA) in 2019 after his promotion from the post of Lower Division Assistant (LDA). It appears his pension was withheld and after almost 4 months of his retirement, the respondents initiated the process of recovery of overdrawn pay which was recovered from his gratuity. It is the case of the original petitioner that he was qualified to receive upgradation under the Assured Career Progression Scheme (ACPS) and later under the Modified Assured Career Progressive Scheme (MACPS), which he claimed he was eligible for the said financial upgradation from the year 2017. The further case of the original writ petitioner, is that he never received any intimation about the said recovery of overdrawn payment and that further he was not heard. Being aggrieved thereby he had come before this Court.

(3.) Mr. B. Nongbet, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the recovery of overdrawn pay is arbitrary and impermissible in law and has placed reliance on the case of State of Punjab and Ors. vs. Rafiq Masih (white washer) and Ors. reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334, and has submitted that out of the 5 postulations as given in Para-18 of the said judgment, 4 are applicable to the case of the petitioner. Learned counsel has also referred to the other cases which have been referred to in Rafiq Masih (supra) to stress his points, that recovery after several years of the implementation of a certain pay scale would not be just and proper, as in the present case the excess payment since the year 2010 was discovered only after the retirement in June, 2019, which was also 9 years after the implementation of the financial upgradation. It is further submitted that the original petitioner retired from a post belonging to Group-C service in June 2019 and that the respondents, realised their mistakes allegedly, only in the year of his retirement. It is further submitted that this is also not a case where this error that occurred can be attributed to the original petitioner in any manner.