AGARTALA, India, March 23 -- Tripura High Court issued the following order/judgement on Feb. 20:

[1] Heard Ld. Counsel Dr. Mihirlal Roy led by Ld. Sr. Counsel Mr. P.Roy Barman, for the petitioner.

[2] Ld. Addl.GA, Mr. Mangal Debbarma appears and accepts notice for respondent nos.1 to 4. Ld. Counsel Mr. A.Chakraborty appears and accepts notice for respondent nos.5 and 6.

[3] It is submitted from the side of petitioner that the petitioner went on superannuation on 28.02.2022 as Jr. Engineer, Civil (Grade-I) from the Department of Agriculture and Farmers' Welfare, Government of Tripura. During his service he was granted the benefit of CAS-I and CAS-II respectively w.e.f. 05.10.1992 and 01.01.1999. He was also given benefit of ACP-III on completion of 25 years of service w.e.f. 05.10.2013. But after his retirement, from the office of Accountant General, a letter was issued on 23.08.2022 to the Executive Engineer (West), Department of Agriculture & Farmers' Welfare, Government of Tripura, West Tripura citing wrong pay fixation of the petitioner on the ground that he was entitled for CAS-II on 05.10.2000 instead of 01.01.1999, and therefore his last pay would be Rs.1,10,300/- as on 01.07.2021. However, his pension was already released treating his last to be Rs.1,10,300/-.

[4] Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed WP(C) No.1098 of 2022 which was dismissed by a coordinate Bench of this Court on 07.03.2024. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred WA No.36 of 2024 which was disposed of on 29.04.2024 with the following order:

"[9] We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and taken note of the relevant materials from record. We have also gone through the impugned judgment. The relevant facts referred in the foregoing part of this order do not need any reiteration. It has been submitted at the outset on behalf of the petitioner that if the CAS-II benefits were conferred from a date anterior to the due date, petitioner does not have any objection to re-fixation of his last pay as proposed by the Accountant General. However, recovery without any due notice after retirement and that too for benefits conferred not on account of any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the petitioner for a period relating to more than 22 years back should not be done without an opportunity to the petitioner to show-cause. We are also in agreement with the submission that in case the Department chooses to recover the amount paid in excess due to conferment of CAS-II benefits from a date i.e. 01.01.1999 anterior to the due date i.e. 05.10.2000 the competent authority under the Department should issue a showcause notice to the petitioner before the proposed recovery. The petitioner shall be allowed opportunity to submit his reply with all supporting documents and submissions. The competent authority on consideration of reply of the petitioner would thereafter proceed to take a decision, in accordance with law, within a reasonable time. It appears that the pension of the petitioner at the reduced scale of Rs.1,10,300/- has already been released but gratuity benefits have been withheld awaiting a response from the Department. In those circumstances, the competent authority of the Department would take an early decision in the matter, in accordance with law.

[10] In the light of discussions and observations made hereinabove, the impugned judgment dated 07.03.2024 passed in WP(C) No.1098 of 2022 is set aside. The writ appeal is disposed of in the manner and to the extent indicated above................................"

A copy of the judgment was communicated to the respondents by the petitioner vide letter dtd. 07.05.2024(Annexure-8).

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=I1mmm2bl4r4EREhYK63Kv4lznpJhOfUVDVziS%2Bo3Ve1kUETuQ5m1Dt8Erjl1pnLb&caseno=WP(C)/111/2026&cCode=1&cino=TRHC010002402026&state_code=20&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.