Disposed

Mahodar Kalita v. the State of Assam and 8 Ors.

Gauhati HC4 Mar 2021WP(C)/2873/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court held recovery from pension for excess salary paid without fault is unsustainable per SC law. Authorities to assess fault within two months. Pending regularization orders must be cleared by petitioner; pension payable on corrected pay.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to submit regularization orders within two months; pension payable on corrected pay after authorities assess fault for excess salary.

Mahodar Kalita Vs the State of Assam and 8… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2021)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010096772020

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/2873/2020

¶5

MAHODAR KALITA

¶6

S/O LT. PRANHARI KALITA, R/O VILL. AND P.O. DEBACHARA, DIST. BAKSA, PIN-781333

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 8 ORS

¶9

REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, EDUCATION DEPTT. DISPUR, GUWAHATI, KAMRUP (M), ASSAM, PIN781006

¶10

2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY FINANCE DEPTT. DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006

¶11

3:THE SECRETARY EDUCATION BODOLAND TERITORIAL COUNCIL KOKRAJHAR DIST KOKRAJHAR PIN-783370

¶12

4:THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI KAMRUP (M) ASSAM PIN-781019

¶13

5:DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION BODOLAND TREITORIAL COUNCIL KOKRAJHAR

¶14

Page No.# 2/4

¶15

ASSAM PIN-783370 6:THE DIRECTORATE OF PENSION GOVT. OF ASSAM HOUSEFED COMPLEX DISPUR GUWAHATI KAMRUP (M) ASSAM PIN-781006 7:THE DISTRICT ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER BAKSA DIST. CIRCLE MUSHALPUR PIN-781372 8:THE INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS BAKSA DIST. CIRCLE MUSHALPUR PIN-781372 9:THE TREASURY OFFICER BAKSHA BTAD MUSHALPUR PIN-78137

¶16

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N BARMAN

¶17

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM

¶18

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

Date : 04-03-2021

¶21

Heard Mr. N. Barman, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. N. Phukan, learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 & 4, Mr. P. Nayak, learned counsel for the respondents No. 2, 3, 5, 7, 8 and 9 and Mr. S.R. Barua, learned counsel for the respondent No.6.

¶22

The petitioner who was working as a Subject Teacher of Nehru Anchalik M.E. School in the district of Baksa, BTAD, Assam retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31/07/2019. After his retirement, when the matter was processed for payment of his pensionery

¶23

Page No.# 3/4

¶24

benefits, the communication dated 03.03.2020 of the Finance and Accounts Officer in the office of the Directorate of Pension, Assam was made addressed to the Inspector of Schools, Baksa, by which, it was provided that during his service tenure, the petitioner was paid a salary higher than his actual scale. Accordingly, by the said communication, the Inspector of Schools, Dhubri, Assam was required to do the needful.

¶25

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 pensionery 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.

¶26

In the communication of 03.03.2020, it is noticed that there is no such conclusion of the Finance and Accounts Officer in the office of 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.

¶27

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/her service tenure because of no fault of his/her, such excess payment cannot be recovered from the retirement benefits.

¶28

The aforesaid provisions of law would squarely be applicable to the facts of this case and as such, the recovery sought to the made by the communication of 03.03.2020 would not 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.

¶29

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.

¶30

However, as submitted by Mr. P. Nayak, learned Standing Counsel for the Finance Department, it is provided that the correct pay of the petitioner would be Rs.525/- instead of Rs.537/- per month.

¶31

Page No.# 4/4

¶32

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 her.

¶33

The pension papers of the petitioner was also returned back for the reason that the service regularization order of the petitioner was required by Pension Department. In view of such requirement, the petitioner to provide the pension department with copies of the orders of regularization that may have been passed in his favour earlier. The petitioner shall provide it to the Inspector of Schools, Baksa who shall forward it to the Director of Pension.

¶34

The aforesaid exercise be done within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment and order.

¶35

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

¶36

JUDGE

¶37

Comparing Assistant

Mahodar Kalita v. the State of Assam and 8 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahodar Kalita v. the State of Assam and 8 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

Santanu Acharjee Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

M/S Ahinsha Chemicals Ltd. Vs the Union of India and 4 Ors.

M/S Ahinsha Chemicals Ltd. Vs the Union of India and 4 Ors.

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.