Dinesh Ch. Basumatary vs The Assam Power Distribution Co. ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 1151 Gua

                                                              Page No.# 1/4

GAHC010222082021




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

                         Case No. : WP(C)/7180/2021

         DINESH CH. BASUMATARY
         S/O LATE JATIN BASUMATARY
         RESIDENT OF RONGMILI, NEAR DOCTORS COLONY, DIPHU, KARBI
         ANGLONG, ASSAM



         VERSUS

         THE ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION CO. LTD. AND 4 ORS.
         REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, BIJULI BHAWAN, PALTAN BAZAR,
         GUWAHATI 01

         2:THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER
          (HRA)
         APDCL
          BIJULI BHAWAN
          PALTAN BAZAR
          GUWAHATI 01

         3:THE DEPUTY PERSONNEL MANAGER (T)
          OFFICE OF THE CGM(D) APDCL(CAR) BIJULI BHAWAN
          PALTAN BAZAR
          GUWAHATI 01

         4:THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER (F AND A)
          I/C PENSION
         AEGCL
          BIJULI BHAWAN
          PALTAN BAZAR
          GUWAHATI 01

         5:THE MEMBER AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE
         ASEB EMPLOYEE'S FUND INVESTMENT TRUST
                                                                Page No.# 2/4

             AEGCL
             BIJULI BHAWAN
             PALTAN BAZAR
             GUWAHATI 0

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. S ISLAM

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, APDCL




                                  BEFORE
                HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA

                                          ORDER

31.03.2022

Heard Mr. S. Islam, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.P. Sharma, learned Standing Counsel for the APDCL. Ms. S. Barua, learned counsel appears for the respondent no.1.

2. The petitioner prays for setting aside the impugned order dated 21.11.2020 issued by the respondent no.4, whereby a direction has been issued to recover the excess overdrawn salary from the monthly pension of the petitioner.

3. The petitioner's counsel submits that the petitioner retired from service on 31.03.2017 while working as Senior Meter Reader in the Office of the Sub-Divisional Engineer, DESD-1, APDCL, Diphu. While the petitioner has been paid his monthly pension, a deduction of Rs.11,000/- p.m. is being made from his monthly pension on account of over-drawal of pay by the petitioner, due to a wrong fixation of pay made by the respondent authorities. The petitioner's counsel submits that the Page No.# 3/4

subject matter in issue is covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334.

4. The petitioner's counsel submits that the wrong fixation of pay is the fault of the respondent authorities and there is no fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner, while making the wrong fixation of pay. He also submits that the petitioner is a Grade-III employee.

5. Mr. S.P. Sharma, learned Standing Counsel for the APDCL fairly submits that the present case is covered by the judgment of the Apex Court in Rafiq Masih (Whitewasher) (supra). He also submits that the respondent no.2 has issued Office Order No. MD/APDCL/HR/PC/209/2019/45 dated 28.05.2021, wherein it has been stated that in view of the guidelines of the Supreme Court, the recovery of overdrawn pay and allowances in respect of the petitioner shall not be given effect to.

6. In the case of Rafiq Masih (Whitewasher) (supra), the Apex Court has held that it would be impermissible on the part of the employer to recover excess pay given to a Grade-III and Grade-IV employee. In the present case not only is the petitioner a Grade-III employee, the wrong fixation of pay has been done by the respondent authorities, without any fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner.

Page No.# 4/4

7. In view of the above reasons, the impugned order dated 21.11.2020 is hereby set aside. The overdrawn pay and allowances already deducted by the respondent authorities, shall be returned to the petitioner, within a period of 1 (one) month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

8. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant