Gauhati High Court
Ramina Ahmed vs The Assam Power Distribution Co. ... on 5 March, 2021
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010089462018
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/2743/2018
RAMINA AHMED
W/O- LATE ABDUL GANI AHMED, E/S-II (RTD)., VILL. BALAPARA PT.II, P.O.
SAPATGRAM, P.S. GOSSAIGAON, DIST. KOKRAJHAR, ASSAM
VERSUS
THE ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION CO. LTD. (APDCL) AND 6 ORS.
REP. BY THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER(D), LOWER ASSAM REGION,
BIJULEE BHAWAN, PALTAN BAZAR, GHY.
2:THE DY. PERSONAL MANAGER
O/O. THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER (D)
APDCL (LAR)
BIJULEE BHAWAN
PALTAN BAZAR
GUWAHATI
3:THE DY. GENERAL MANAGER
(F AND A)
PENSION
AEGCL
BIJULEE BHAWAN
PALTAN BAZAR
GHY.
4:THE MEMBER AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE
ASEB EMPLOYEES PENSION FUND INVESTMENT TRUST
APDCL
BIJULEE BHAWAN
Page No.# 2/5
PALTAN BAZAR
GUWAHATI
5:THE ASSTT. GENERAL MANAGER (F AND A) AUDIT
O/O. THE CGM (F AND A) AUDIT
APDCL
BIJULEE BHAWAN
PALTAN BAZAR
GUWAHATI
6:THE ASSTT. GENERAL MANAGER
DHUBRI ELECTRICAL DIVISION
APDCL (LAR)
GAURIPUR
DHUBRI
ASSAM
7:THE SUB-DIVISIONAL ENGINEER
AGOMONI ELECTRICAL SUB-DIVISION
APDCL (LAR)
AGOMONI
DHUBRI
ASSA
Advocate for the Petitioner : MD. A HUSSAIN
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, APDCL
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
ORDER
Date : 05-03-2021
Heard Mr. A. Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. D. Thaosen, learned
Standing counsel for the APDCL.
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that after the petitioner's husband had retired on
31.12.2014, the petitioner's husband was given his pension and other pensionary benefits.
Page No.# 3/5
However, while giving the petitioner's husband his retirement benefits, Rs. 3,50,121/- was
recovered from the petitioner's husband on the ground of excess drawal, vide office Order
dated 27.02.2017. The petitioner's husband thereafter filed the present writ petition and the
same was disposed of vide Order dated 06.09.2018, with a direction to the respondents to
refund the amount of Rs. 3,50,121/- to the petitioner's husband in terms of the judgment of
the Apex Court in Shyam Babu Verma and Others Vs. Union of India and Others,
reported in (1994) 2 SCC 521 and State of Punjab & Others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White
Washer) and Others, reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334.
3. Subsequent to the above, the State respondents filed Review Petition No. 186/2018
stating that while the amount of Rs. 3,50,121/- was to be given to the petitioner's husband,
Rs. 3,26,555/- had been given to the petitioner's husband, contending that an amount of Rs.
23,566/- was recovered from the petitioner's husband as interest on the House Building
Advance availed by him.
4. As the question of whether the petitioner's husband was entitled to recovery of Rs.
23,566/- was to be decided, the Order dated 06.09.2018 passed by this Court was recalled
and the writ petition restored to file vide Order dated 29.05.2019 passed in Review Petition
No. 186/2018. Subsequently, the petitioner's husband expired on 24.08.2020.
5. The bone of contention is with regard to whether the respondents had been paid the
interest on the House Building Advance, amounting to Rs. 23,566/- by the petitioner's
husband. The petitioner's counsel's submission is that there is no liability on the part of the
petitioner, as the House Building Advance and the interest thereon has already been paid to
the respondents.
Page No.# 4/5
6. This Court vide Order dated 15.02.2021 directed the Standing Counsel, APDLC to
obtain instructions as to how the amount of Rs. 23,566/- had remained as an outstanding
liability against the House Building Advance.
7. Mr. D. Thaosen, learned Standing counsel for the APDCL has submitted a calculation
sheet dated 03.03.2021 issued by the AGM (F&A), GAD, office of the CJM, (F&A), APDCL,
which is to the effect that the interest on the House Building Advance payable by the
petitioner's husband was Rs. 23,566/-.
8. In view of the above, this Court, being a writ Court cannot decide the issue as to
whether the said interest amount had been paid by the petitioner's husband to the APDCL in
the absence of any evidence/proof being furnished by the petitioner. As such, this Court will
have to accept the calculation made by the APDCL till the time the same is challenged by the
petitioner in a Civil Court. Thus, this Court, at this juncture finds that the Order dated
06.09.2018 has been substantially complied with.
9. The above being said, this Court, vide the Order dated 06.09.2018, had directed that
the respondents would have to pay interest @ 12% p.a. on the amount to be refunded, if the
same was not paid within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of
the Order dated 06.09.2018. In this regard, the petitioner's counsel may furnish a
representation to the APDCL with regard to the interest payable to the petitioner, inasmuch
as, the petitioner has taken a stand that the certified copy of the Order dated 06.09.2018 had
been given to the APDCL on 12.09.2018, while the amount of Rs. 3,26,555/- had been given
to the petitioner only on 18.03.2019. If the petitioner submits a representation for payment
of interest, the respondents will examine the same and take a decision on the same within a
Page No.# 5/5
period of one month from the date of receipt of the representation.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
