Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sri F.J.M. Crasta, a retired Professor in Physics from St. Aloysius College, Mangalore, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari to quash an endorsement dated 13.08.2013 issued by the Commissioner for Collegiate Education (respondent No.2) and a writ of mandamus directing the State of Karnataka and the Commissioner to pay interest at 18% on the amount of Rs.3,03,921/- recovered from his Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity (DCRG) and pension, along with costs of Rs.50,000/-. The petitioner retired on 30.04.2005 after serving as a professor. Upon retirement, he was entitled to pension and DCRG. However, the respondents recovered Rs.2,50,000/- from his DCRG and Rs.53,921/- from his pension without any prior notice or opportunity of hearing. The petitioner contended that the recovery was illegal and arbitrary, and that he was entitled to interest on the delayed payment of pension and DCRG. The respondents argued that the recovery was made due to an overpayment of salary to the petitioner. The court analyzed the facts and held that the recovery without notice was illegal and violative of Article 300A of the Constitution, which protects the right to property. The court also held that pension is a right and not a bounty, and delay in payment entitles the retiree to interest. The court quashed the impugned endorsement and directed the respondents to refund the recovered amount of Rs.3,03,921/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of recovery till the date of payment, and to pay interest at 6% per annum on the delayed payment of pension and DCRG from the date they became due till the date of payment. The petition was allowed in part.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Right to Property - Article 300A of the Constitution of India - Recovery without Notice - The petitioner, a retired professor, challenged the recovery of Rs.3,03,921/- from his pension and DCRG without prior notice. The court held that such recovery without notice is illegal and violative of Article 300A, which protects the right to property. The respondents were directed to refund the amount with interest at 6% per annum from the date of recovery till payment. (Paras 1-10) B) Service Law - Pension and DCRG - Interest on Delayed Payment - The petitioner sought interest on delayed payment of pension and DCRG. The court held that pension is a right and not a bounty, and delay in payment entitles the retiree to interest. The respondents were directed to pay interest at 6% per annum on the delayed amounts from the date they became due till the date of payment. (Paras 5-10) C) Administrative Law - Natural Justice - Recovery without Notice - The court emphasized that any recovery from a retiree's pension or DCRG must be preceded by a show-cause notice and an opportunity of hearing. Failure to do so violates principles of natural justice. The impugned endorsement dated 13.08.2013 was quashed. (Paras 7-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the recovery of Rs.3,03,921/- from the petitioner's pension and Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity (DCRG) without prior notice is legal and whether the petitioner is entitled to interest on the delayed payment of pension and DCRG.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed in part. The impugned endorsement dated 13.08.2013 is quashed. The respondents are directed to refund the recovered amount of Rs.3,03,921/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of recovery till the date of payment, and to pay interest at 6% per annum on the delayed payment of pension and DCRG from the date they became due till the date of payment. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Right to property under Article 300A
- Pension is a right and not a bounty
- Recovery without notice is illegal
- Interest on delayed payment of pension and DCRG
- Writ of certiorari and mandamus
