Allowed

Chandra Sing Ronghang v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Gauhati HC3 Feb 2020WP(C)/437/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a retired teacher, challenged a notice alleging excess pay fixation. The Court held recovery barred under Supreme Court principles as payment was made over five years prior and petitioner retired within one year of the notice. Petitioner directed to submit pension proposal without deduction.

What did the court decide?

Directing respondent No. 5 to furnish pension proposal without deduction and releasing benefits within two months after receipt of proposal.

Chandra Sing Ronghang Vs the State of Assam… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2020)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010015862020

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C) 437/2020

¶5

1:CHANDRA SING RONGHANG

¶6

S/O LT. BONGHOM RONGHANG, VILL. KULI TERANG GAON, P.O. DUWARBAMUNI, PIN-782441, DIST. KARBI ANGLONG, ASSAM

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

1:THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS.

¶9

REP. BY COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, THE PENSION DEPTT. SACHIVALAYA, DISPUR, GUWAHATI, ASSAM, PIN-781006

¶10

2:THE DIRECTOR OF PENSION HOUSE FED COMPLEX LAST GATE DISPUR GUWAHATI ASSAM-781006

¶11

3:THE FINANCE AND ACCOUNTS OFFICER DIRECTORATE OF PENSION HOUSE FED COMPLEX DISPUR GUWAHATI-06

¶12

4:THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI-19

¶13

5:THE DISTRICT PRIMARY EDUCATION OFFICER DIPHU

¶14

Page No.# 2/4

¶15

DIST. KARBI ANGLONG PIN-78246

¶16

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B P BORAH

¶17

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM

¶18

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. KOTISWAR SINGH

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Date : 03-02-2020

¶21

Heard Mr. B. P. Borah, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Deuri, learned Govt. Advocate, Assam for respondent Nos. 1 to3, Mr. R. Mazumder, learned Standing Counsel, Education (Elementary) Department for respondent No. 4, and Ms. S. Kemprai, learned counsel for respondent No. 5.

¶22

In this petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned communication dated 13.05.2019 issued by the Finance & Accounts Officer, Directorate of Pension, Assam addressed to the District Primary Education Officer, Diphu, Karbi Anglong asking him to remove the deficiency in respect of the pension proposal of the petitioner. In the said letter, it was observed that on 01.01.1996 the pay of the petitioner should have been fixed at Rs.3370/- instead of Rs.3430/- and excess payment on pay & allow including leave encashment benefit may be assessed. It has also been mentioned in the said letter that while submitting the new pension proposal, steps should be taken to see that the deficiency does not recur again which may lead to return of pension proposal.

¶23

The petitioner is now apprehending that the authority will deduct the excess amount from the pensionary benefits of the petitioner.

¶24

This Court is of the view that this is a matter which should be examined by the District Primary Education Officer, Diphu, who will accordingly, do the needful and forward the appropriate pension proposal.

¶25

It is however, made clear that while submitting the new pension proposal of the petitioner, there cannot be deduction on account of alleged wrong fixation of pay scale which

¶26

Page No.# 3/4

¶27

had occurred while the petitioner was serving as an Asstt. Teacher of Pung Aji L.P. School in the District of Karbi Anglong. Moreover, the petitioner has also retired from service on 30.06.2018 and the authorities did not proceed for recovery of the alleged excess payment before one year of retirement but after retirement vide impugned communication dated 13.05.2019.

¶28

This Court holds so, in view of the principles adopted by the Government of Assam issuing the Office Memorandum dated 14.06.2019 in terms of the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc . in CA No. 11527 of 2014 (Arising out of SLP No. 11684 of 2012) decided on 18.12.2014.

¶29

In the said Office Memorandum dated 14.06.2019, it has been held that under the following circumstances recovery may not be made:

¶30

“ 4. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while observing that it is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship which would govern employees on the issue of recovery, where payments have mistakenly made by the employer, in excess of their entitlement, has summarized the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers would be impermissible in law:

¶31

i. Recovery from employees belonging to Class III and IV service (for Group “C” and Group “D” service.

¶32

ii. Recovery from retired employees, or employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery.

¶33

iii. Recovery from employees, when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery is issued.

¶34

iv. Recovery in cases where an employee has wrongfully been required to discharge duties of a higher post, and has been paid accordingly, even though he should have rightfully been required to work against an inferior post.

¶35

v. In any other case, where the Court arrives at the conclusion, that recovery if made from the employee, would be iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary to such an extent, as would for outweigh the equitable balance of the employer’s right to recover.”

¶36

Page No.# 4/4

¶37

This Court is of the view that the case of the petitioner is covered by Para 4(ii) of the aforesaid Office Memorandum dated 14.06.2019.

¶38

Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of by directing the respondent authorities, more particularly, respondent No. 5, the District Primary Education Officer, Diphu, Karbi Anglong to furnish the necessary pension proposal of the petitioner without effecting any deduction or directing for any recovery on account of alleged wrong fixation of pay scale of the petitioner, which exercise shall be undertaken within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and thereafter, the pension authority shall release the pensionary benefits of the petitioner within further period of 2 (two) months from the date of receipt of the necessary pension papers from respondent No. 5, the District Primary Education Officer, Diphu, Karbi Anglong.

¶39

JUDGE

¶40

Comparing Assistant

Chandra Sing Ronghang v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandra Sing Ronghang v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pranab Kumar Kalita Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Anjana Rani Bhattacharyya Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Krishna Ranjan Paul Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Mofiza Khanom Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Jeautima Chakravorty Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Tosheswar Gogoi Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.