Allowed

Ranjita Ray v. the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Gauhati HC5 Mar 2021WP(C)/1421/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court held that recovery from pension for excess salary paid without employee fault is prohibited. Ordered authorities to verify if petitioner contributed to excess; if not, pension payable without recovery. Directors to process pension on correct pay within two months.

What did the court decide?

Directions to Pension Authorities to assess petitioner's contribution to excess salary; if none, pension to be paid on correct pay without recovery within two months.

Ranjita Ray Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2021)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010035942021

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/1421/2021

¶5

RANJITA RAY

¶6

W/O LATE BALEN CH. RAY, R/O VILL. CHUKANI, P.O. BATGURI, DIST. BONGAIGAON, ASSAM, PIN 783323

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS

¶9

TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, EDUCATION ELEMENTARY DEPTT., DISPUR, GHY-6

¶10

2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM

¶11

FINANCE DEPTT. DISPUR GUWAHATI 06

¶12

3:THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION

¶13

ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI 19

¶14

4:THE DIST. ELEMENTARY EDUCATION BONGAIGAON ASSAM PIN 783388

¶15

5:THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS

¶16

NORTH SALMARA ABHAYAPURI DIST. BONGAIGAON

¶17

Page No.# 2/4

¶18

ASSAM PIN 783383

¶19

6:THE DIRECTOR OF PENSION

¶20

ASSAM HOUSEFED COMPLEX DISPUR GUWAHATI 0

¶21

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR H TALUKDAR

¶22

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM

¶23

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

¶24

Date : 05-03-2021

¶25

JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)

¶26

Heard Mr. H Talukdar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. N Phukan, learned standing counsel for the Elementary Education Department, Mr. SR Barua, learned counsel for the authorities in the Pension Department and Mr. A Chaliha, learned Standing counsel, Finance Department.

¶27

The husband of the petitioner, who was appointed as an Assistant Teacher of No.246 Haldi Bari LP School retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.01.2019. After his retirement, when the matter was processed for payment of his pensionery benefits, the communication dated 14.10.2020 of the Finance and Accounts Officer in the Office of the Directorate of Pension, Assam was made addressed to the Deputy Inspector of Schools, North Salmara 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 Deputy Inspector of Schools, North Salmara was required to do the needful.

¶28

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 pensionary 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.

¶29

Page No.# 3/4

¶30

In the communication of 14.10.2020, 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.

¶31

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 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.

¶32

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 14.10.2020 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.

¶33

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.

¶34

However, as submitted by Mr. A Chaliha, learned Standing Counsel for the Finance Department, it is provided that as the correct pay of the petitioner ought to have been Rs.1185/- per month instead of Rs.1285/- per month. 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.

¶35

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.

¶36

In terms of the above, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶37

Page No.# 4/4

¶38

JUDGE

¶39

Comparing Assistant

Ranjita Ray v. the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranjita Ray v. the State of Assam and 5 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

Shankar Saha and Anr. Vs Kamakhya Prasad Boro and 6 Ors.

Kanchan Kumar Roy Vs Jagadish Prasad Brahma

Leisnatombi Singha Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Dipali Sen Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Dasarath Goala Vs Bijoya Choudhury

Jogesh Ch Lahkar Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.