Jalal Uddin Mazumdar vs The State Of Assam And 4 Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 473 Gua

                                                               Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010018962021




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

                           Case No. : WP(C)/788/2021

         JALAL UDDIN MAZUMDAR
         S/O LATE ANOWAR ALI MAZUMDAR, VILL. NAGDIRGAM, P.O.
         NAGDIRGRAM, DIST. CACHAR, ASSAM.



         VERSUS

         THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS
         REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM,
         PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPTT., DISPUR, GUWAHATI 6

         2:THE PRINCIPAL SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM

          FINANCE DEPTT.
          DISPUR
          GUWAHATI 6

         3:THE COMMISSIONER

          PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPTT. ASSAM
          PANJABARI
          JURIPAR
          GUWAHATI 37

         4:THE DIRECTOR OF PENSION

          ASSAM
          HOUSEFED COMPLEX
          DISPUR
          GUWAHATI 6

         5:THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                                                                                          Page No.# 2/3

             KARIMGANJ ZILLA PARISHAD
             P.O. AND DIST. KARIMGANJ
             ASSAM

Advocate for the Petitioner    : MR. M ISLAM

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM




                                   BEFORE
                 HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA

                                              ORDER

10.02.2021

Heard Ms. P. Barua, learned counsel for the petitioner who submits that the petitioner retired on superannuation on 30.04.2019 as Secretary of Ishabeel Gaon Panchayat under Karimganj Zilla Parishad.

Petitioner's prayer for payment of pension and other retiral benefits has not been acceded to by the respondents in view of the wrong fixation of pay made by the respondents, which they might attempt to recover.

The petitioner's counsel submits that the petitioner is a Grade-III employee and as such, no recovery of excess payment can be made due to the wrong fixation by the respondents, in which the petitioner had no hand to play. In this respect, the counsel relies upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the State of Punjab and others Vs. Rafiq Masih, reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334.

She also submits that the respondent no.5 had written a letter dated 06.12.2019 to the respondent no.3 to move the Finance Department for according approval for waiving the excess drawal of pay made by the petitioner.

Issue Notice returnable in 3 (three) weeks.

Mr. A. Chaliha, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of respondent no.2. Mr. A. Roy, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of respondent nos.1, 3 and 5. Mr. N. Goswami, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of respondent no.4. Accordingly all the respondents are represented.

In view of the direction passed by the Apex Court in Rafiq Masih (supra), this Court is of the view that there cannot be any recovery of excess payment made to the petitioner due to the wrong Page No.# 3/3

fixation of pay made by the respondents.

In the interim, till final disposal of the case, no recovery shall be made with regard to the excess payment made to the petitioner.

The respondents' counsels shall take instructions as to whether the petitioner's pension proposal has been made by the respondent no.5 and sent to the respondent no.3.

List the matter after three weeks.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant