STATE OF WEST BENGAL Vs. HAREKRISHNA SARDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RE: An appln. for Condonation of delay (C. A. N. No. 608/09)Considering the averments made in the application for condonation of delay, we are satisfied that sufficient grounds have been shown for condoning the delay of 17 days in preferring the appeal. Accordingly, the delay is condoned and the application for condonation of delay is allowed. Re: An appln. for Stay (C. A. N. No. 650/09)

(2.) THIS appeal has been filed by the State of West Bengal against the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 18th of July, 2008 whereby directions had been issued for refund of an amount of Rs. 94,342/- which had been deducted from the gratuity of the petitioner after retirement.

(3.) THE writ petitioner was appointed as assistant teacher on 1. 1. 1967. His appointment was duly approved on 29th of July, 1974. His basic pay was fixed at Rs. 300/- on 1. 1. 1967. Subsequently, with effect from 3rd April, 1981 the basic pay was revised by virtue of Government Order No. 372-Edn. (B) dated 31st of July, 1981 issued under Revision of Pay and allowance (hereinafter referred to ROPA), 1981 at Rs. 520/- per month. From time to time the scale of pay of the petitioner was revised under the ropa Rules of 1990 and 1998. On 1st April, 1999, the scale of pay was fixed at Rs. 9175/- with additional increment. The fixation of pay of the writ petitioner was duly recorded in the service book from time to time. It was also approved by the District Inspector of Schools (herein after referred to DIS ). On the date of retirement, i. e. , 31st August, 2005, the salary of the petitioner was Rs. 10,675/ -. The school authority submitted all the papers and documents of the petitioner for the purpose of sanctioning pensionary benefits including gratuity to the DIS. It appears that the school authorities also informed the DIS that a sum of Rs. 94,342/- had been overpaid to the petitioner as his pay had been mistakenly fixed at rs. 359. 52/- instead of Rs. 345/- on 1. 1. 1976. This mistake had continued in the subsequent revisions of the pay also. Relying on the aforesaid statement of the school authority, the DIS deducted the sum of Rs. 94,342/-from the gratuity of the petitioner. This deduction was challenged by the petitioner in the writ petition. Before the learned Single Judge the State was duly represented.