HENJENSON D. SANGMA Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The brief facts are that the petitioner had served as a Gram Sevak in the office of the Block Development Officer, Samada Development Block, East Garo Hills District on being appointed on 12/3/1984. The petitioner, in the course of his service, was promoted to the post of Senior Gram Sevak and retired from the said post on 29/2/2024. However, when the matter came for release of his terminal benefits, it was put to the knowledge of the petitioner vide letter dtd. 20/5/2024, that his salary had been overdrawn which was to be recovered before the pension and other terminal benefits were processed by the respondents. The petitioner thereafter, had preferred representations before the State respondents, and on being aggrieved by the inaction, is before this Court by way of this instant writ petition.

(2.) Mr. A.G.Momin, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the proposed recovery of Rs.10,73,496.00 from the terminal/retirement benefits of the petitioner is unsustainable, inasmuch as, it is not the fault of the petitioner that the excess amount had been allowed. He further submits that to recover the amount from the petitioner at this stage, would cause gross injustice, as he has availed a loan from the State Bank of India, and is also suffering from an ailment for which the petitioner requires treatment which is not available in the place where the petitioner is residing. Learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to Annexure-XV which is a letter dtd. 8/8/2024, and also Annexure-XV-A which is a letter dtd. 4/10/2024, both issued by the State Bank of India, which evidences the outstanding demand of Rs.169054.00 plus interest, being made from the petitioner. Further, learned counsel has also referred to a Medical Certificate where the patient has been advised to proceed for treatment. He submits that though the petitioner might have executed an undertaking in the prescribed form with regard to allowing the recovery on an excess amount, the same relates to a Pay Revision that was implemented w.e.f. 2007, and at this late stage after retirement, firstly, with him facing extreme financial hardship and also considering his health condition, prays that this Court may pass appropriate orders to exempt the writ petitioner from the recovery proceedings and to direct for release of his terminal benefits and his pension, which he submits, has not been released.

(3.) Mrs. T.Yangi B, learned AAG assisted by Mr. H.Abraham, learned GA on behalf of the State respondents, in reply has submitted that the recovery sought to be made is as per due procedure and it cannot be said to be arbitrary or punitive in any manner. Learned AAG has submitted that firstly, the writ petitioner had executed an undertaking in the prescribed form and submits that the pay revision which had been made effective from the year 2007 in 2009, the first undertaking made in 2009 itself, has not been refuted by the writ petitioner, so also, the second undertaking executed in 2024. She further submits that as per Rule 73 of the Meghalaya Civil Service Pension Rules, 1983, the government reserves the right, and it is the liability of every retiring government servant to clear all the dues before the date of retirement, and when the same is not possible, out of the gratuity payable, the same will be recoverable. She submits that this Rule has also not been challenged, and the petitioner having been put to notice with regard to the discrepancy in pay, if any, which would be recoverable, no case has been made out for interference by this Court. In this context, learned AAG has also referred to a judgment passed by this Court dtd. 15/11/2022, passed in WP(C). No. 255 of 2020, in the case of Smti. Badarisha Nongkhar vrs. State of Meghalaya & Ors.