MIHIR KANTI BHATTACHARJEE Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was working as a Forest Ranger under the Government of Tripura and retired from service on 29.2.96. As he did not received his pension and other retirement benefits, he moved this court in a writ petition numbered as Civil Rule No. 117/97 and by order dated 6 2.97 this court disposed of the said writ petition/ with the direction to the respondents to finalise the retirement benefits of the petitioner within two months from the date of receipt of the said order. Thereafter, the Divisional Forest Officer, Teliamura Division, accorded sanction of 374th DCRG amounting to Rs 39,043/- in favour of the petitioner as per the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, (for short," the Pension Rules"). But when the petitioner went to the office of the Divisional Forest Officer, Teliamjura Division, he was informed that the said amount of Rs 39,043/- had to be adjusted towards his liability to the State Government. Aggrieved, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 31.3.97 before the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Tripura, requesting to effect payment of the said amount of Rs 39,043/- to him. The petitioner was however not paid the said amount of Rs 39,043/- and instead received a copy of the letter dated 2.4.97 of the Divisional Forest Officer, Teliamura Division to the Accountant General, Tripura, wherein it was stated that a total amount of Rs 71,937.80 was lying as outstanding dues against the petitioner out of which Rs 39,043/- only had been recovered from his 3/4th DCRG bill and the balance amount of Rs 32,894.80 was still lying outstanding against the petitioner. In the said letter dated 2.4.97 to the Accountant General, it was further stated that the unpaid 10% provisional pension with effect from 1.9.96 and l/4th DCRG admissible to him might be adjusted against the said outstanding dues of Rs 32,894.80. On these facts, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for directions on the respondents to refund the said amount of Rs 39,043/- to the petitioner illegally recovered from him and not to make any further recovery from the petitioner and for a further direction to the respondents to finalize his retirement benefits in accordance with the order dated 6.2.97 passed by this court in Civil Rule No. 117/97.

(2.) At the hearing of the writ petition, Mr. A. Roy barman, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that in the earlier Cicil Rule No. 117/97, no plea was taken by the respondents that any amount was due from the petitioner to the State Government and that after the said Civil Rule was disposed of by this court by order dated 6.2.97 directing the respondents to finalize the retirement benefits of the petitioner, the respondents now could not take a stand that an amount of Rs 71,937.80 was due from the petitioner to the ;State Government. He further submitted that under Rule 9 of the Pension Rules, it was only the Governor of Tripura who had the right of withholding or withdrawing a pension ar part thereof or of ordering recovery from a pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Government, if, in any departmental or judicial proceedings,; the pensioner was found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of his service. But, in the instant case, no order has been passed by the Governor either for withholding of pension or for recovery from pension for any pecuniary loss caused to the Government He further submitted that although a departmental proceeding was drawn up against the petitioner, the said proceeding was dropped by order dated 16.10.96 by the Governor and in the absence of any finding in the departmental proceeding that the petitioner was guilty of misconduct or negligence as a result of which pecuniary loss had been caused to the Government, no part of the pension of die petitioner could be withheld and no recovery could be made from the pension. Mr. Roy Barman also relied on the notification dated 8th April, 1997 of the Government of Tripura in the department of Finance which indicates that the State Government has adopted the provisions of the notification No. 7/10/89- DSPW (F) dated 28.11.91 of the Ministry of Personnel, P.G.& Pensions (Department of Pension & P. W.), Government of India, to the extent it provides for payment of interest in case of delayed payment of gratuity to an employee. He vehemently argued that this is a fit case in which this court should direct the authorities to pay not only the pension and retirement benefits to the petitioner but also interest and exemplary cost against the State Government.

(3.) Mr. U. B. Saha, learned Government Advocate, Tripura, on the other hand , contended that Rule 9 of the Pension Rules had no application on the facts and in the circumstances of the present case and instead relied on Rule 75 of the Pension Rules which clearly stipulated that it was the duty of every retiring Government servant to clear all Government dues before the date of his retirement and which authorised deduction of Government dues from the gratuity payable to such Government servant. Mr. Saha submitted that the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents would show that an amount of Rs 71,937.80 was outstanding against the petitioner at the time of his retirement and the Divisional Forest Officer was therefore right in directing recovery of an amount of Rs 39,043/- out of the 3/4th DCRG payable to the petitioner and the balance amount of Rs 32,894.80 from the balance l/4th DCRG and the provisional pension of the petitioner. Mr. Saha also referred to the copies of the orders dated 3.7.90, 27.8.90 and 21.11.90 annexed to the Affidavit-in-opposition of the respondents to show that it was as far back as in the year 1990 that the petitioner was asked to pay the amounts of Rs 4,060/-, Rs 7.175/- and Rs 14,592/- on account of excess expenditure incurred by him as a Forest Ranger in different plantations. He also referred to the order dated 22.1.96 annexed to the affidavit-in-opposition as Annexure-7(d) whereby the petitioner was asked to pay an amount of Rs 11,235/- for excess booking in 1989 plantation at Durgapur and Tuttaibari and Rs 16,166.90 for missing and stealing of Sal posts at Gandacherra under Ambassa Division and yet the petitioner did not pay the said amounts. Finally, Mr. Saha argued that in the earlier Civil Rule No. 117/97, this court did not give any direction in the order dated 6.2.97 to pay the pension and retirement benefits to the petitioner but only directed the authorities to finalize the retirement benefits of the petitioner and it was only at the time of finalising the retirement benefits of the petitioner that all these difficulties have arisen. He contended that since there was a dispute between the petitioner and the respondents as to whether the petitioner was liable for the amount of Rs. 71,937.80 as claimed by the respondents, the petitioner should have pursued his remedies in a Civil Court and this court should not exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution on the facts and in the circumstances of the case.