Gauhati High Court
Nagendra Nath Dutta vs The State Of Assam And 5 Ors on 8 March, 2021
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010120882020
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/3598/2020
NAGENDRA NATH DUTTA
S/O. LT. HEMUDHAN DUTTA, VILL. JIAMARIA, P.O. AND P.S.
DHAKUAKHANA, DIST. LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS.
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT.
OF ASSAM GUWAHATI-06 (EDUCATION DEPTT.).
2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRY.
TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
PENSION AND PUBLIC GRIEVANCE DEPTT.
GUWAHATI-06.
3:THE DIRECTOR OF PENSION
ASSAM HOUSEFED COMPLEX
GUWAHATI-06.
4:DIRECTORATE OF ACCOUNT AND TREASURES
ASSAM
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-06.
5:ACCOUNTANT GENERAL
MAIDAM GAON
KRISHNAPUR
BELTOLA TINIALI
GUWAHATI-781029.
Page No.# 2/3
6:DEPUTY INSPECTOR OF SCHOOL
DHAKUAKHANA
DIST. LAKHIMPUR
ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR MINTU SAIKIA
Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA
JUDGMENT
Date : 08-03-2021
Heard Mr. M. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. N. Phukan, learned
counsel for the respondents No. 1 and 6, Mr. B. Deuri, learned counsel for the respondents No. 2
and 3, Mr. A. Hasan, learned counsel for the respondent No.5 and Mr. B. Gogoi, learned counsel
for the respondent No.4.
2. The petitioner who was working as an Assistant Teacher, in Dhunaguri Kutum Prathamik
Vidyala in the district of Lakhimpur retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on
31.05.2018. After his retirement, when the matter was processed for payment of his pensionery
benefits, the communication dated 13/05/2019 of the Finance and Accounts Officer in the office of the
Directorate of Pension, Assam was made addressed to the Deputy Inspector of Schools,
Dhakuakhana, by which, it was provided that during his service tenure, the petitioner was paid a
salary higher than his actual scale. Accordingly, by the said communication, the Deputy Inspector of
Schools, Dhakuakhana, Assam was required to do the needful.
3. The said communication has been assailed in this writ petition on the ground that as per the
law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, recovery from the pensionery benefits cannot be made
in respect of any salary that was paid to an employee during his service period for no fault of hisown.
4. In the communication of 13/05/2019, it is noticed that there is no such conclusion of the
Finance and Accounts Officer in the office of the Directorate of Pension, Assam that the excess salary
was paid to the petitioner because of any fault of his or because of any overt act on his 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 his.
Page No.# 3/3
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/her service tenure
because of no fault of his/her, such excess payment cannot be recovered from the retirement benefits.
6. The aforesaid provisions of law would squarely be applicable to the facts of this case and as
such, the recovery sought to the made by the communication of 13/05/2019 would not 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 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 pensionery 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 the correct pay of the petitioner would be Rs.537/- 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 him.
9. The aforesaid exercise be done within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified
copy of this judgment and order.
10. In terms of the above, the writ petition stands disposed of.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
