PANJIM: The Goa Human Rights Commission (GHRC) has directed the ESI Insurance Medical Officer, Incharge and Head of Office, Margao, to refund Rs 4,79,611 recovered from the complainant, as expeditiously as possible and not later than 60 days from the date of the order.
The Commission further held that if the amount is not refunded within the stipulated period, it shall carry interest at the rate of 8 per cent per annum from the date of the order until actual payment.
If you enjoyed reading this article, you can help support our journalism by adding OHeraldo as a preferred source.
The complaint was filed by Teotonio Jose Maria Pereira of Carmona, who challenged the recovery of Rs 4,79,611 deducted from his gratuity on May 26, 2025, following his retirement in February last year.
Pereira had retired from government service as a Multi-Tasking Staff on February 28, 2025, after rendering 31 years, eight months and 26 days of service.
In its reply, the respondent submitted that during verification of the complainant’s pay fixation, it was noticed by the Directorate of Accounts that his pay fixations were not in order. Consequently, the pay was revised and a recovery of Rs 4,79,611 was effected in compliance with the observations of the Directorate. Thereafter, the Pension Payment Order (PPO) was issued and the balance gratuity amount of Rs 5,50,597 was paid to the complainant.
However, after examining the judgments on the issue, the Commission held that the respondent could not have recovered the alleged excess payment of Rs 4,79,611 from the complainant’s retirement gratuity after his superannuation on February 28, 2025, particularly when the excess payment was not attributable to any misrepresentation or fault on the part of the complainant.
The two-member Commission comprising Desmond D’Costa and Pramod V. Kamat observed that such recovery from a retired Group C employee would be iniquitous, harsh and arbitrary, and would far outweigh the employer’s equitable right to recover the amount. It further held that the deduction made from the complainant’s gratuity amounted to a violation of his human rights.
