PRADIP KUMAR NEOG Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The decision of the concerned departmental authorities to effect recovery of the pay and allowances drawn by the Petitioner's father (since deceased) is the immediate cause of the present endeavour to seek the remedial intervention of this Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. A declaration of the deceased employee's right for pension has also been sought for.

(2.) I have heard Mr. R.P. Sarmah, learned senior counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. M.R. Pathak, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department, Govt. of Assam for the Respondents.

(3.) A synoptic recital of the rival pleadings would be essential. The Petitioner's father Late Manik Ch. Neog rendered his services as the Headmaster of the Missamora Higher Secondary School since 1972 (hereinafter for short referred to as the School). The said School having been upgraded as a Higher Secondary Institution, he was appointed as the Principal thereof vide Memo dated 18.03.1982 of the Inspector of Schools', S. D. C., Jorhat. He was relieved from the service on superannuation with effect from 31.01.1982. Consequent thereupon, he was disbursed an amount of Rs. 6349.12 by way of contributory provident fund, which he did not collect. Though, thereafter, he ran from the pillar to post, neither his pension, nor his other retiral benefits were released and he eventually expired of the terminal disease of cancer on 30.09.2003. Meanwhile, the Assam Secondary Education Provincialisation Act, 1977 (hereinafter for short referred to as the Act) had been promulgated with effect from 01.10.1977. According to the Petitioner, the original matriculation certificate of his father issued by the Calcutta University recorded his age therein to be 14 years 1 month on 01.03.1938. However, the duplicate certificate issued later by the said University disclosed his age therein to be 19 years 11 months as on 01.03.1938. The Petitioner has asserted that as his father had retired from service at the age of 60 years without exercising any option under Section 4(3) of the Act, he was entitled to pension and other retiral benefits. Instead, by the impugned communications dated 19.02.2001 (Annexure-IV) and 25.04.2001 (Annexure-V), the pay and allowances drawn by him for the period 01.04.1978 to 31.01.1982 is sought to be recovered.