GAUHATI HIGH COURT ISSUES ORDER ON PRAFULLA SARMAH BARUAH V/S THE ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY AND ORS.

GUWAHATI, India, Sept. 24 -- Gauhati High Court issued the following order on Aug. 25:

1. Invoking the extraordinary, discretionary and equitable jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has instituted the instant writ petition seeking inter-alia a direction to the respondent Assam Power Distribution Company Limited [APDCL] to make payment of an amount of Rs. 1,58,760/-, which amount, according to the petitioner, was arbitrarily deducted from the retirement gratuity of the petitioner after his retirement from service on superannuation on 01.01.2014.

2. The petitioner joined service in the erstwhile Assam State Electricity Board [ASEB] and after trifurcation of the ASEB, pursuant to the Electricity Act, 2003 into three entities, the service of the petitioner came to be under the APDCL. During his service career, the petitioner rose through the ranks and finally on 01.01.2014, he retired from service of the APDCL on reaching the age of superannuation of 60 years. At the time of his retirement on superannuation, the petitioner was serving in the post of Engineering Subordinate-II [E/S-II]. Subsequent to his retirement on superannuation, the competent authority in the APDCL issued an Office Order on 19.08.2014 sanctioning pension, commuted value of pension and retirement gratuity. By the Office Order dated 19.08.2014, the petitioner was sanctioned pension @ 11,890/- per month with effect from 02.01.2014 prior to the date of drawal of committed value of pension and thereafter @ Rs. 7,927/- per month till his death or restoration of full pension, whichever would be earlier. The Office Order also sanctioned an amount of Rs. 4,66,525/- towards commuted value of pension. In so far as retirement gratuity is concerned, the petitioner was paid an amount after adjustment of outstanding liabilities. Though an employee of the APDCL was entitled for a retirement gratuity of Rs. 7,00,000/-, the petitioner was not granted the entire amount of Rs. 7,00,000/-. It was mentioned that the petitioner had an outstanding liability of Rs. 1,58,760/- because of excess drawal of pay and the interest on it which was credited to GPF account as per the provisions of Revision of Pay Rules, 1992 and 1997. The Office Order also mentioned about family pension. Since the petitioner is surviving as on date, there is no necessity to dilate on the aspect of family pension.

3. I have heard Mr. R. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K.P. Pathak, learned Standing Counsel, APDCL for the respondent APDCL authorities.

4. Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it was after the petitioner's retirement on superannuation, the respondent authorities checked the payments made towards pay and allowances of the petitioner during his service period and it was detected that during the period from 2006 to 2014, there was erroneous fixation of pay. After calculation, the respondent authorities had arrived at the figure of Rs. 1,58,760/- and without any kind of prior information to the petitioner, the respondent authorities had deducted the said amount from the retirement gratuity of the petitioner. He has submitted that there was no role attributable to the petitioner in such erroneous fixation of pay.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=tuqye3PhFs%2BBDn75ghiOpMC9k7yVJKhtI%2F46%2Fj2gdJHIlUuUoATdpwnDuUFrxWGl&caseno=WP(C)/4785/2023&cCode=1&cino=GAHC010182472023&state_code=6&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.