HC rules against recovery from retired employee's benefits
Source: Chronicle News Service
Imphal, May 06 2024:
Justice Ahanthem Bimol Singh of High Court of Manipur delivered a verdict prohibiting the recovery of excess payments from the retirement benefits of a grade-III employee.
The case is related to a writ petition filed by W Manilei-ma Devi against the State of Manipur & others.
Manileima was initially appointed as a substitute assistant graduate teacher in 1986 for a period of six months and her service was extended periodically thereafter.
Subsequently, on July 21, 1992, the department appointed her as an Arts Graduate Teacher.
Further, on February 16, 2005, her service period from her initial appointment on substitute basis in 1986 until her regular appointment as an Arts Graduate Teacher in 1992 was officially regularised.
Upon reaching the age of superannuation on October 31, 2019, she retired from her position.
However, despite due process initiated for release of her pension and other retirement benefits, complications arose.
In 2020, the office of the Accountant General brought attention to alleged irregularities in the fixation of her pay scale, advising the under-secretary (pension cell) to address these issues.
Unfortunately, no action was taken to rectify these errors, resulting in her being deprived of her entitled retirement benefits for nearly five years post-retirement.
Consequently, she filed a writ petition seeking resolution.
The petitioner argued that even if some excess payments were made to her, they occurred over 19 years ago.
Therefore, the respondents should not recover alleged excess payments from her retirement benefits and pension.
In contrast, the respondents contended that certain irregularities occurred in the fixation of her pay scale and the regularisation of her past service rendered on a substitute basis.
They argued that until these irregularities were rectified, her pension and other retirement benefits could not be released.
Justice Ahanthem Bimol Singh's bench emphasised that even if irregularities in pay fixation occurred, they transpired almost two decades prior, and the petitioner had already reached the age of superannuation.
Citing the precedent set by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab & Others vs Rafique Masih & Others, the court declared recoveries impermissible under three conditions: from Class III and Class IV service employees, from retired employees, and from employees due to retire within one year of the order of recovery, or when excess payment has been made for over five years before the order of recovery.
Consequently, the case was disposed of .