Bhabendra Nath Sarma vs The State Of Assam And 6 Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 2424 Gua

                                                                Page No.# 1/5

GAHC010064952021




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

                            Case No. : WP(C)/2485/2021

         BHABENDRA NATH SARMA
         S/O LATE UMAKANTA SARMA, R/O HOUSE NO. 25, BIKRAMPUR,
         SHANKAR NAGAR PATH, P.O. JAPORIGOG, GUWAHATI, DIST. KAMRUP (M),
         PIN 781005, ASSAM.



         VERSUS

         THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS
         REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECY., SECONDARY
         EDUCATION DEPTT., DISPUR, GUWAHATI 781006

         2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECY.

          PENSION AND PUBLIC GRIEVANCES DEPTT.
          DISPUR
          GUWAHATI 781006

         3:THE SECY.

          FINANCE DEPTT.
          DISPUR
          GUWAHATI 781006

         4:THE DIRECTOR OF SECONDARY EDUCATION

          ASSAM
          KAHILIPARA
          GUWAHATI 781019

         5:THE DIRECTOR OF PENSION GOVT. OF ASSAM

          HOUSEFED COMPLEX
                                                                     Page No.# 2/5

             DISPUR
             GUWAHATI 781006

            6:THE OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS

             KAMRUP DIST. CIRCLE (M)
             PANBAZAR
             GUWAHATI 1

            7:THE TREASURY OFFICER

             KAMRUP (M

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. P M TALUKDAR

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, SEC. EDU.

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

Date : 05-10-2021

JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)

Heard Ms. S Yasmin, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R Majumdar, learned standing counsel for the Secondary Education Department, Government of Assam and Ms. DD Barman, learned counsel for the authorities in the Pension Department as well as Mr. B Gogoi, learned Standing counsel, Finance Department, Government of Assam.

2. The petitioner who was working as a Senior Assistant of Night Higher Secondary School in the district of Kamrup(M) retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.01.2017. After his retirement, when the matter Page No.# 3/5

was processed for payment of his pensionery benefits, the communication dated 08.05.2018 of the Finance and Accounts Officer in the Office of the Directorate of Pension, Assam was made, addressed to the Inspector of Schools, Guwahati, by which it was provided that during his service tenure, the petitioner was paid a salary higher than his actual scale of pay. Accordingly, by the said communication, the Inspector of Schools, Kamrup(M) 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 his own.

4. In the communication of 08.05.2018, 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 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.

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 Page No.# 4/5

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 08.05.2018 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 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. 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.

Page No.# 5/5

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