Subhadra Phukan vs The State Of Assam And 4 Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 1834 Gua

                                                                  Page No.# 1/4

GAHC010069032021




                      THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
  (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                          Case No. : WP(C)/2675/2021

         SUBHADRA PHUKAN
         D/O- CHANDRA NATH PHUKON, R/O- CHIRING CHAPORI OPP.
         JYOTIMORAL SANGHA, P.O. DIBRUGARH, DIST.- DIBRUGARH, PIN- 786001,
         ASSAM



         VERSUS

         THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS
         REP. BY COMM. AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, THE PENSION
         DEPTT., SACHIVALAYA, DISPUR, ASSAM- 781006

         2:THE DIRECTOR OF PENSION
          HOUSEFED COMPLEX
          LAST GATE
          DISPUR
          GHY
         ASSAM- 781006

         3:THE FINANCE AND ACCOUNTS OFFICER
          DIRECTORATE OF PENSION
          HOUSEFED COMPLEX
          DISPUR
          GHY-06

         4:THE DIRECTOR OF SECONDARY EDUCATION
         ASSAM
          KAHILIPARA
          GHY-19

         5:THE INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS
          DIBRUGARH
          DIST.- DIBRUGARH
                                                                            Page No.# 2/4

             PIN- 78566

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR B P BORAH

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)

Date: 11.08.2021

Heard Mr. PJ Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B Kaushik, learned standing counsel for the Secondary Education Department, Government of Assam, Mr. G Pegu, learned counsel for the authorities in the Pension Department as well as Mr. B Gogoi, learned Standing counsel, Finance Department.

2. The petitioner who was working as Hindi Teacher in Graham Bazar Girls High School in the district of Dibrugarh, Assam retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.12.2015. After her retirement, when the matter was processed for payment of her pensionery benefits, the communication dated 18.05.2017 of the Finance and Accounts Officer in the Office of the Directorate of Pension, Assam was made addressed to the Inspector of Schools, Dibrugarh by which it was provided that during her service tenure, the petitioner was paid a salary higher than her actual scale of pay. Accordingly, by the said communication, the Inspector of Schools, Dibrugarh was required to do the needful.

3. The said communication has been assailed in this writ petition on the Page No.# 3/4

ground that as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, recovery from the pensionary benefits cannot be made in respect of any salary that was paid to an employee during his/her service period for no fault of her own.

4. In the communication of 18.05.2017, it is noticed that there is no such conclusion of the Finance and Accounts Officer in the Directorate of Pension, Assam that the excess salary was paid to the petitioner because of any fault of her or because of any overt act on her part, which had contributed to such payment of excess salary. In the absence of any such material, it cannot be concluded whether the excess salary was paid to the petitioner because of any fault of her.

5. The law in this respect has been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shyam Babu Verma and others -vs- Union of India and others , reported in (1994) 2 SCC 521 and State of Punjab and Others -vs- Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others, reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334, wherein it had been held that in the event an excess salary is paid to an employee during his service tenure because of no fault of his, such excess payment cannot be recovered from the retirement benefits.

6. The aforesaid provisions of law squarely be applicable to the fact of this case and as such, the recovery sought to the made by the communication of 18.05.2017 would not be sustainable in its present form. However, as no material has been produced before this Court as to whether the excess salary was paid to the petitioner because of any overt act of the petitioner, this Court deems it appropriate that the ends of justice would be met if the authorities in the Pension Department make an assessment as to whether there was any contribution on the part of the petitioner in receiving such excess salary during his service tenure. In the event, if it is found that there was no such Page No.# 4/4

contribution from the petitioner leading to such excess payment, the authorities shall not insist upon the recovery in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as indicated above.

7. Further, in the event, the authorities arrive at a situation where the excess payment can no longer be recovered from the pensionary benefits, the authorities shall consider and process the payment of pension to the petitioner as per law.

8. However, as submitted by Mr. B Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel for the Finance Department, it is provided that as the correct pay of the petitioner ought to have been Rs.1555/- per month. Accordingly, the authorities shall proceed with the payment of pension by taking into account the correct pay that the petitioner ought to have received and not the incorrect higher pay that was paid to her.

9. The aforesaid exercise be done by the respondent authorities within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

10. In terms of the above, the writ petition stands disposed of.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant