MITALI SAIKIA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. S.R. Gogoi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. N.K. Debnath, learned counsel appearing for the PNRD department, Mr. B. Gogoi, learned counsel for the Finance Department and Mr. B. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the respondent No.6.

(2.) This petition is instituted by Smti. Mitali Saikia claiming family pension in respect of her deceased husband Tarun Chandra Borah, who was a Junior Engineer in the PNRD department. The deceased husband of the petitioner died on 14/7/2019. The department has raised an issue as regards the payment of family pension and some other benefits like gratuity, leave salary PF dues etc. to the petitioner for the reason that there was an over-drawal of salary of Rs.23,84,524.00 by the deceased husband of the petitioner during the period of his overstay in service and therefore, the department is of the view that the excess salary paid to the deceased husband of the petitioner for the overstay period has to be recovered and therefore, the family pension cannot be paid to the petitioner.

(3.) Mr. N.K. Debnath, learned counsel for the PNRD department refers to Paragraph Nos. 25 and 26 to a decision of the Supreme Court rendered in State of Bihar and Others -vs- Pandey Jagdishwar Prasad reported in (2009) 3 SCC 117. By referring to the paragraph 25 thereof, it is the submission of the learned counsel that the decision of the Supreme Court in Kailash Singh -vs- State of Bihar was on concession being made by the State before the Court that the amount of excess drawal of salary for the overstay in service is not to be recovered. In Paragraph- 26 with reference to its earlier judgment in Hari Singh -vs- State of Bihar, the Supreme Court was of the view that since the Government had never put the employee on notice to indicate that the date of birth as entered in the service book was incorrect though it could have done so, therefore the Supreme Court was of the view that there was a duty of the State to put the employee on notice about his date of retirement and not having done so, the State was not entitled to recover the excess amount. By referring to the aforesaid two propositions, Mr. N.K. Debnath, learned counsel seeks to differentiate the factual circumstance of the present case and submits that interference as regards the recovery cannot be ordered.