Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/5 vs The State Of Assam And 7 Ors on 7 March, 2025
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010012772025
2025:GAU-AS:2435
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/524/2025
SMTI RUMI SAIKIA
W/O GIRINDRA SAIKIA, R/O VILLAGE SINGIAGAON, P.O. BATAMARI,
DISTRICT LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM, PIN 787053
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 7 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT
OF ASSAM, SCHOOL EDUCATION (ELEMENTARY)DEPARTMENT DISPUR
GUWAHATI-6
2:THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION
ASSAM
KAHILIPARA
GUWAHATI-19
3:THE BLOCK ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER
BORDOLONI
GHILAMARA
DISTRICT- LAKHIMPUR
ASSAM
PIN- 787001
4:THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS
DHAKUAKHANA
DISTRICT- LAKHIMPUR
ASSAM
PIN- 787055
5:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
Page No.# 2/5
GUWAHATI-6
6:THE TREASURY OFFICER
DHAKUAKHANA SUB-TREASURY
DIST.- LAKHIMPUR
ASSAM
PIN- 787055
7:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
PENSION AND PUBLIC GRIEVANCES DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-6
8:THE DIRECTOR OF PENSION
ASSAM
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-0
Advocate for the Petitioner : MD. S ALOM, MR. M S ALAM,MS. A BEGUM,MR S J SHAMIM
Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, FINANCE DEPTT.,SC, ELEM. EDU
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY
ORDER
07.03.2025
Heard Mr. S. Alam, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. N. J.
Khataniar, learned standing counsel for the Elementary Education Department
representing the respondents.
2. The petitioner was working as an Assistant Teacher of Ghilamara Adarsha L.P.
School, in the district of Lakhimpur and retired from service on 31.03.2024, It is her
case that though after retirement, her employer i.e., the District Elementary Education
Officer, forwarded all necessary documents along with the service book of the
petitioner for the payment of her pensionary benefit along with other benefit,
Page No.# 3/5
however, the Director of Pension put an objection that there are some excess drawl by
the petitioner and accordingly, the pension has not yet been released.
3. Mr. Alam, learned counsel for the petitioner referring to a letter dated
17.12.2024 issued by the Deputy Inspector of School, Dhakuakhana, Lakhimpur,
contends that the said Officer has asked the petitioner to refund excess amount drawn
by the petitioner amounting to Rs. 1,85,076/- (Rupees One Lakh Eighty Five Thousand
Eight Hundred and Nineteen) only. It was further directed to refund the aforesaid
amount through treasury challan in one instalment at the earliest possible. As the
petitioner could not deposit such amount being low paid employee and pensioner, the
respondents are not releasing the pension of the petitioner.
4. In this regard, Mr. Alam, learned counsel for the petitioner referring to the
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of the State of Punjab & Ors., vs.
Rafiq Masih (Whitewasher) submits that the petitioner being a low paid employee
cannot be burdened with the recovery inasmuch as the excess payment was made by
the employer by mis-calculating his scale of pay.
5. Per contra, referring to the details of excess drawl (Annxure-1), the learned
counsel for the State submits that due to wrong fixation of scale of pay, the petitioner
was paid excess amount with effect from 01.01.2006 to 31.03.2024.
6. Admittedly, from the communication dated 17.12.2024 issued by the Deputy
Inspector of School addressed to the Treasury Officer, it is clear that the excess drawl
was due to wrong fixation of scale of pay by the then Block Elementary Education
Officer, Bordoloni at 9700/- instead of Rs. 9530/- with effect from 01.01.2006. The
petitioner was an Assistant Teacher and she had no role in the fixation of her scale of
pay.
Page No.# 4/5
7. Thus, it is clear that the reason of recovery is relatable to an excess payment
made to the petitioner by her employer, while mistakenly calculating her scale of pay
as determined on 01.01.2006. There is no allegation of any fraud or mis-appropriation
or manipulation on the part of the petitioner. It is candidly admitted by the State
respondent that the mistake was on their part in calculating the scale of pay and
accordingly, the excess payment was made to the petitioner.
8. In Rafiq Masih (Supra), the principle of law that when a low-ranked employee is
paid a scale of pay to which the employee is not entitled to, however, by wrong/miss-
calculation such payments were made for no fault of such pensioner, the said amount
shall not be recovered by the employer was approved. In the case in hand, this Court
also cannot ignore the service status of the petitioner who was Assistant Teacher and
also cannot ignore that there is no whisper by the employer that it was the petitioner
who manipulated or mis-presented in granting her higher scale of pay, rather, as
recorded herein above, it is an admitted position that excess payment made was due
to wrong calculation.
9. In the aforesaid view of the matter, considering the law laid down in this regard
by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra), the present writ petition
stands allowed by setting aside and quashing the impugned decision to recover an
amount of Rs. 1,85,076/- (Rupees One Lakh Eighty Five Thousand Eight Hundred and
Nineteen) only from the pension of the pensioner. Accordingly, the Deputy Inspector of
School, Dhakuakhana, Lakhimpur, i.e., the respondent No. 4. as well as the Director of
Pension i.e., the respondent No. 8 are directed to proceed with the pension proposal
of the petitioner without insisting any recovery on account of excess drawl. The
regular pension to be paid to the petitioner within a period of 3(three) months from
the receipt of a certified copy of this order to be furnished by the petitioner to the
respondent Nos. 4 and 8.
Page No.# 5/5
The writ petition stands disposed of. Parties to bear their own cost(s).
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
