31.01.2024
Court No.13
Item No.94
BP
WPA 1757 of 2024
Satya Narayan Mahata
Vs.
The State of West Bengal and Ors.
Mrs. Subhra Nag
... For the Petitioner.
Affidavit-of-service filed in Court today is
taken on record.
In the present case the writ petitioner is
aggrieved by the order of deduction of the overdrawn
amount of a sum of Rs. 12,270/- after his retirement.
The writ petitioner was an Panchayat Karmee who
retired from service on 31.01.2009 and the pension
was paid by the authorities after deducting the
aforesaid amount as overdrawn amount.
The issue whether overdrawal of pay can be
adjusted against retirement dues of an employee has
been settled in the case of Shyam Babu Verma & Ors.
v. Union of India & Ors., reported in (1994) 2 SCC 521
and also in a later decision in the case of Syed Abdul
Qadir & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in
(2009) 3 SCC 475.
Counsel on behalf of the respondent authorities
submits that there is no considerable delay in
approaching the Writ Court and accordingly, the Writ
Court should now allow such a prayer.
A judgement of a co-ordinate Bench of this court
in the case of Shiba Rani Maity v. The State of West
Bengal in W.P. No. 29979 (W) of 2016 as well as
Biswanath Ghosh v. The State of West Bengal in W.P.
2
No. 27562 (W) of 2016 has categorically held that in a
case where no rights have accrued in favour of a third
party, the petitioner who has suffered by reason of
non-payment of amount withheld on the grounds of
an alleged overdrawal has a right to approach this
court for appropriate relief. The relevant paragraphs
from WP No. 29979 (W) of 2016 are set out below:
(15) The only other question is that
“
whether the writ petition should be
entertained in spite of delay of about 17
years in approaching this Court. In a
judgment and order dated 6 September,
2010 delivered in MAT 1933 of 2010 passed
by a Division Bench of this Court and held
that although the petitioner had approached
the Court after a lapse of nine years, no third
party right had accrued because of the delay
and it was only the petitioner who suffered
due to non-payment of the withheld amount
on account of alleged over-drawal.
Accordingly the Division Bench set aside the
order of the Learned Single Judge by which
the writ petition had been dismissed only on
the ground of delay.
(16) Following the Division Bench
judgment of this Court adverted to above, I
hold that it is only the petitioner who
suffered by reason of the wrongful
withholding of the aforesaid sum from his
retiral benefits. Although there has been a
delay of about 17 years in approaching this
Court, the same has not given rise to any
third party right and allowing this writ
application is not going to affect the right of
any third party. It may also be noted that the
Hon’ble Apex Court observed in its decision
3
in the case of Union of India vs. Tarsem
Singh, (2008) 3 SCC 648 that relief may be
granted to a writ petitioner in spite of the
delay if it does not affect the right of third
parties.”
It is clear from the above that a Writ of
Mandamus is prayed for is maintainable in the facts
of the present case.
I accordingly direct the concerned treasury
officer to release the amount of Rs. 12,270/- to the
petitioner along with interest @ 8% per annum with
effect from the date of issuance of the pension
payment order. Such payment is to be made to the
petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date
of communication of this order.
With the aforesaid directions, the instant
writ petition is disposed of.
Urgent certified website copy of this order, if
applied for, be made available to the petitioner upon
compliance with the requisite formalities.
(Rajasekhar Mantha, J.)