Gauhati High Court
Shri Sukhamay Dey vs The State Of Assam And 7 Ors on 30 July, 2025
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010155302025
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WA/236/2025
SHRI SUKHAMAY DEY
S/O LATE SUKESH RANJAN DEY, PRESENTLY SERVING AS SENIOR GRADE
STENOGRAPHER/SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY TO HONBLE JUDGE,
GAUHATI HIGH COURT, R/O FLAT NO. 28, JAGAT ENCLAVE,
BHAGADUTTAPUR ROAD, KAHILIPARA, GUWAHATI, PIN 781019, MOIBLE
PHONE NO. 9706061676
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 7 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, JUDICIAL DEPTT.,
JANATA BHAWAN, DISPUR, GUWAHATI 781006
2:THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR GENERAL
M.G. ROAD
GUWAHATI 781001
3:THE LEGAL REMEMBRANCER CUM COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY
TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
JANATA BHAWAN
DISPUR, GUWAHATI 781006
4:THE REGISTRAR GENERAL
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
M.G. ROAD, GUWAHATI 781001
5:THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
JANATA BHAWAN
DISPUR, GUWAHATI 781006
6:THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
Page No.# 2/5
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSION
JANATA BHAWAN
DISPUR, GUWAHATI 781006
7:THE PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A AND E)
ASSAM, MAIDAMGAON
BELTOLA, GUWAHATI
8:THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR (FINANCE)
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
M.G. ROAD, GUWAHATI
PIN 781001
For petitioner/appellant(s) : Mr. P. D. Nair, Advocate
For respondent(s) : Mr. H. K. Das, SC, GHC
Mr. R. Borpujari, SC, Finance
Mr. R.K. Talukdar, Advocate
Mr. R.K. Bora, Advocate
- BEFORE -
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY
30.07.2025
(Ashutosh Kumar, CJ)
We have heard Mr. P.D. Nair, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. H.K.
Das, learned Standing Counsel, Gauhati High Court.
The appellant has questioned the judgment dated 29.05.2025, passed by
the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 6653/2014, wherein directions were
issued to the respondents to re-compute the actual recovery to be made from
the salary of the appellant and, further, to take steps for recovery of the amount
so calculated, which the appellant has received in excess of his entitlement.
Shorn of all unnecessary details, the core facts on which the judgment
impugned has been pronounced are that the appellant was employed as a
Page No.# 3/5
Stenographer (Grade-D) in the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) against a
recruitment drive conducted in the year 1989. Later, he applied for the post of
Stenographer Grade-I at the Principal Seat of the Gauhati High Court against an
advertisement dated 23.05.2008. After coming out successful in the afore-noted
examination for the post of Stenographer, Grade-I in the High Court, the
appellant resigned from the CBI and joined the High Court on 09.01.2009.
At the time of his joining, the appellant, as his Last Pay Certificate reflects,
was in the Pay Band of Rs. 12,660/- with Grade Pay of Rs. 4,200/-. Since he was
on a higher pay in his earlier employment, he was given the pay protection in
the High Court.
The Pay Band on which the appellant had worked in the CBI had been
fixed after calculating the benefits under the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay)
Rules, 2008 (hereinafter referred as "Rules of 2008").
At the time when the advertisement was issued by the Gauhati High
Court, the Scale of Pay of Stenographer Grade-I in the High Court was by virtue
of the Assam Services (Revision of Pay) Rules, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as
"ROP Rules, 1998"). Later, the Assam Services (Revision of Pay) Rules, 2010
(hereinafter referred to as "ROP Rules, 2010") was promulgated and the benefit
thereof was extended to all the employees of the Gauhati High Court.
On the basis of the applicability of the ROP Rules, 2010, the appellant's
pay was also mistakenly revised to Rs. 22,000/- plus Grade Pay of Rs. 5,900/- as
per the Fitment Table 22 of the ROP Rules, 2010. Ever since then, the appellant
continued to get the benefit of pay fixation in terms of the ROP Rules 2010.
Later, it was detected that the appellant had already had pay protection in
the High Court on his revised Pay Scale in the CBI and, therefore, he ought not
Page No.# 4/5
to have been given the benefit of revised pay in the High Court under the ROP
Rules, 2010; for that would have amounted to a double fiscal benefit to the
appellant to which he was not entitled to. As such, steps were taken by the
respondents for recovery of the excess amount, which the appellant had
received for several years.
This decision of the respondents was challenged by the appellant before
this Court by way of a writ petition.
The learned Single Judge, after referring to the facts of the case and the
case-laws in that regard, found that there was no reason to interfere with the
decision of the respondents in recovering the excess amount, which the
appellant had received.
It was noted by the learned Single Judge that many a times the Courts
refrain themselves from passing orders for recovery of the excess amount
already paid to an employee, but that is not because of any right in the
employee. This is only on the grounds of equity. A government servant,
particularly in the lower rung of service, may spend every emolument which he
receives for his family and if such excess payment is made to him for a long
time, he could genuinely believe that he is entitled to it. Precisely for this
reason, the Courts have held in their judicial discretion that for the employees of
the lower rungs, or the employees who have retired, there should not be
recovery of the excess amount, but only when such excess payment is not
because of the fault of the employee or his collusion in getting paid more than
his entitlement. Whenever an employee has the knowledge that the payment
received by him is in excess of what is due to him, or excess amount has
wrongly been paid to him, such discretion may not be exercised.
Page No.# 5/5
After having noted the trends of judicial decisions in Chandi Prasad Uniyal
& Others vs. State of Uttarakhand & Others, reported in (2012) 8 SCC 417; Syed
Abdul Quadir & Others vs. State of Bihar and Others , reported in (2009) 3 SCC
475 and Col. (Retd.) B.J. Akkara vs. Government of India & Others , reported in
(2006) 11 SCC 709, the learned Single Judge was of the view that the appellant
would not be entitled to say that the recovery would cause extreme hardship to
him.
The appellant was aware that he cannot have double benefits of the pay
hike and he continued to litigate for it for twelve long years. He must have got
an idea during the period of litigation that he may ultimately lose out and would
be required to return the excess amount. It cannot, therefore, be said that the
appellant would be at a loss to know as to the source from where the amount
sought to be recovered, would be arranged for.
We fully agree with the reasoning of the learned Single Judge and,
therefore, find no reason to interfere with the judgment impugned in the
present appeal.
However, any observation, en passant in the judgment impugned would
not be read against the appellant during his service tenure.
With the afore-noted observations, the appeal stands dismissed.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Comparing Assistant
