MANJOOR AHMED Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS in both the writ petitions have sought for a direction to the Respondents to release Rs. 17,074.20 and Rs. 32,408.30 in favour of the respective petitioners which have been kept withheld by the Respondents from the post -retirement benefits of their respective father. Petitioners have also prayed for grant of interest over the delayed payment.

(2.) PETITIONERS are respective sons of late Ramjan Ali and late Chedi Lal Mandal employees in the State Government 'sPublic Health Engineering Department. Both of whom died on 30.8.97 and 21.6.98 respectively and their wife also died before them. In the aforesaid writ petitions the respective deceased employee worked till 31.8.1984. Later vide Memo no.521 dated 18.3.1996 (Annexure -1 to both writ petitions) they were communicated that their respective date of retirement should be 28.2.83 and 1.4.81 instead of 31.8.84 and, therefore, excess payment of salary drawn by them was recoverable from the post -retiral benefits. Executive Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department, Public Health Division, Saharsa -Respondent no. 3, vide letter no. 72 -75 dated 31.1.1996 directed the Treasury Officer, Supaul for deduction of the aforesaid amount paid to the respective employee as salary for the said period. It is claimed that the deceased employee approached several times to the authorities for redressal of their grievance, but the authorities did not pay any heed and ultimately they died without redressal of their grievance. As claimed, petitioners thereafter filed representation for release of the said amount as during the illness of their father they had taken loan for treatment and after their death religious rites were also performed after taking huge amount of loan which they are bound to repay.

(3.) IT is well settled that no penalty can be imposed without at least giving an opportunity to the concerned employee to defend himself. Moreover, the Apex Court in the case of Sahib Ram V/s. State of Haryana & others, reported in 1995 Supp.(1) S.C.C. 18 in which the benefit of higher pay scale was given to the appellant, but by wrong construction made by the Principal for which the appellant could not be held to be at fault, directed that the amount paid till date may not be recovered from the appellant. This direction was given on the premise that it was on account of any mis -representation by the appellant that the said benefit was given to him.