Allowed

Jibon Chandra Sonowal v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Gauhati HC14 Dec 2021WP(C)/7475/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court held that it is impermissible for the State to recover excess pay from a retired Class-III employee where the overpayment resulted from the State's mistake and there was no fraud. The Court set aside the recovery order and ordered return of the amount.

What did the court decide?

Set aside the recovery letter; order refund of Rs. 1,76,741/- within three months; grant regular pension based on correct pay fixation.

Jibon Chandra Sonowal Vs the State of Assam… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2021)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010238792019

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/7475/2019

¶5

JIBON CHANDRA SONOWAL

¶6

SON OF LATE MOLESWAR SONOWAL, RESIDENT OF WARD NO. 11, K.B. ROAD, H.NO.- 13580(S), NORTH LAKHIMPUR TOWN, P.O. AND P.S.- NORTH LAKHIMPUR, IN THE DISTRICT OF LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM, PIN- 787001.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS.

¶9

REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, PUBLIC WORKS (BUILDING AND NATIONALHIGHWAY) DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 781006.

¶10

2:THE CHIEF ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT BUILDING DIVISION CHANDMARI GUWAHATI- 781003.

¶11

3:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT NORTH LAKHIMPUR BUILDING DIVISION NORTH LAKHIMPUR DIST- LAKHIMPUR ASSAM PIN- 787001.

¶12

4:THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL ( A AND E) ASSAM MAIDAMGAON BELTOLA GUWAHATI- 781029.

¶13

Page No.# 2/3

¶14

5:THE TREASURY OFFICER LAKHIMPUR DISTRICT- LAKHIMPUR ASSAM PIN- 787001

¶15

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N U K NAIR

¶16

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM

¶17

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA

¶18

ORDER

¶19

14.12.2021

¶20

Heard Mr. A. Chetry, learned counsel for the petitioner, who submits that the petitioner retired as an UDA on 31.07.2017. The petitioner thereafter applied for pension and the same was sanctioned on 04.06.2018. However, the Senior Accounts Officer in the office of the Accountant General (A&E), Assam wrote a letter dated 04.06.2018 to the Treasury Officer, Lakhimpur stating that Rs.1,76,741/- should be recovered from the arrear and future relief payable to the petitioner.

¶21

The petitioner’s counsel submits that the amount sought to be recovered from the petitioner is due to the wrong fixation of pay made by the respondents w.e.f. 01.04.2016. The petitioner’s counsel submits that the petitioner submitted an application dated 20.04.2017 stating that there had been a wrong fixation of pay and accordingly had asked the respondents to correct the mistake. He also submits that there has been no fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner in the making of the wrong fixation of pay and the impugned letter dated 04.06.2018 issued by the Senior Accounts Officer should be set aside in so far as it directs Rs.1,76,741/- should be recovered from the petitioner. He also submits that as the said amount of Rs.1,76,051/- has already been recovered, the said amount should be returned to the petitioner. He also submits that the present case is covered by the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and others Vs.

¶22

Page No.# 3/3

¶23

Rafiq Masih (White Washer), reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334.

¶24

Mr. P. Nayak, learned counsel appears for the respondent nos.1, 2, 3 and 5 while Mr. R. Mazumdar, learned counsel appears for respondent no.4. The counsels for the respondents submit that though the petitioner has submitted a representation requesting the respondents not to recover the overdrawn pay given to the petitioner, the State respondents have already recovered the said amount from the petitioner.

¶25

I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

¶26

The Apex Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (White Washer) (supra) has held that it is impermissible to recover any excess amount paid to Class-III and Class-IV employees. The petitioner herein was a Class-III employee at the time of his retirement. A perusal of the documents on record does not give any indication that the petitioner had any role to play in the wrong fixation of pay made by the respondents.

¶27

In view of the above reasons, this Court is of the view that it would be impermissible for the State respondents to recover any excess amount of pay given to the petitioner. Accordingly the letter dated 04.06.2018 issued by the Senior Accounts Officer in the office of the Accountant General (A&E), Assam whereby Rs.1,76,741/- is sought to be recovered is set aside, to the extent that it pertains to recovery of excess pay. Accordingly the amount of Rs.1,76,741/-, if already recovered from the petitioner, shall be given back to the petitioner within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. It is needless to say that the petitioner should be given his regular pension in terms of the correct fixation of pay.

¶28

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶29

JUDGE

¶30

Comparing Assistant

Jibon Chandra Sonowal v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jibon Chandra Sonowal 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prabha Bala Rabha Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Rupjoutey Das @ Rupjyoti Das Bhuyan Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Bhupen Bhagawati Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Provat Singha @ Prabhat Kumar Singha Vs the State of Assam and 8 Ors.

Tuleswar Chungkrang Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Hemanta Kumar Baruah and 4 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 12 Ors.