Dismissed¶98

Baharul Islam v. Bhabesh Deka and Anr.

Gauhati HC1 Sept 2025Cont.Cas(C)/130/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

overstay in service beyond superannuation; pension not payable concurrently with salary already drawn; post-superannuation service excluded from retiral benefits; arrear pension from 01/02/2018 refused; recovery of excess salary Rs. 17,07,100 barred; pension fixed on pre-superannuation pay but effective 01/07/2021; PPO ADP/PPO/GPO/2023/088042; Director of Pension Assam; contempt dismissed for timely compliance within stipulated period; Coal India Ltd v Ardhendu Bikas Bhattacharjee (2005) 12 SCC 201; State of U.P. v Shiv Narain Upadhyaya (2005) 6 SCC 49; WP(C) 2254/2023 referred; Assam elementary education teacher; Nalbari; W.P.(C) No.4936/2021; W.P.(C) No.1873/2022.

What did the court decide?

The stand taken by Respondent No. 4 is logical: a person is not entitled to salary and pensionary benefits concurrently for the same period.

Baharul Islam Vs Bhabesh Deka and Anr. — Writ and Judicial Review | Gauhati HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶98

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, who was already paid salary for the overstay period 01/02/2018 to 30/06/2021 with all cumulative increment, is nevertheless entitled to pension for that overstay period. +1 more

¶67

Court's answer

The stand taken by Respondent No. 4 is logical: a person is not entitled to salary and pensionary benefits concurrently for the same period.

¶92

Ratio / Principle

Having been paid salary up to 01.07.2021, the petitioner's pension entitlement cannot be extended back over the overstay period; consequently no pension is payable for 01/02/2018 to 30/06/2021.

¶92

Key takeaways

No pension was granted for the overstay period 01.02.2018 to 30.06.2021; the pension runs from 01.07.2021.ratio¶89
Because salary with all cumulative increments had already been drawn for the overstay period, the pension was correctly fixed taking pay as on the actual date of retirement (31/01/2018) but made effective only from 01.07.2021.ratio¶91
There was no wilful violation of this Court's order dated 25.04.2023; on that count the contempt petition Cont. Cas (C) No. 130/2024 deserved dismissal and is dismissed.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

GAUHATI HIGH COURT | W.P.(C) No. 7551/2023 (linked: Cont.Cas(C)/130/2024) | Judgment & Order (CAV) dt. 02.09.2025 | Justice Robin Phukan (single member). Facts: petitioner, a Head Teacher whose HSLC Certificate (dt. 11/06/1978) records DOB 01/01/1958, was due to superannuate on 31/01/2018 but was inadvertently kept in service till 10/08/2021, drawing salary with increments for 01/02/2018-30/06/2021; a BEO letter dt. 13/09/2021 sought recovery of Rs. 17,07,100/- as excess drawl. By order dt. 25/04/2023 in W.P.(C) Nos. 4936/2021 & 1873/2022, a Co-ordinate bench quashed that communication, barred recovery, directed fixation of retirement benefits on the actual superannuation date (30.01.2018) and processing of pension within four months. Respondent No. 4 (Director of Pension) issued PPO No. ADP/PPO/GPO/2023/088042 dt. 11/08/2023 (Annexure-6): monthly pension Rs. 11,590/- and DCRG Rs. 3,38,958/- computed on last basic pay Rs. 32,190/-, but effective only from 01/07/2021; petitioner sought modification for arrears from 01/02/2018 and filed a contempt petition alleging non-compliance. THIS COURT HELD: (i) salary and pensionary benefits are not concurrently drawable - having been paid salary up to 01.07.2021, pension entitlement cannot extend over the overstay period (relying on Coal India Ltd. v. Ardhendu Bikas Bhattacharjee (2005) 12 SCC 201 and State of U.P. v. Shiv Narain Upadhyaya (2005) 6 SCC 49); pension stands fixed on pay as on 31/01/2018 but payable from 01/07/2021, with no pension for the overstay period; (ii) Annexure-6 was issued within the stipulated period, hence no wilful violation of the 25.04.2023 order. OUTCOME: writ petition dismissed; Cont. Cas (C) No. 130/2024 dismissed; parties to bear own costs.

Page No.# 1/15

GAHC010289002023

2025:GAU-AS:11793

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

¶5

Case No. : WP(C)/7551/2023

¶6

BAHARUL ISLAM S/O- LATE SOLEMAN ALI, VILLAGE- KHAKHARISAL, P.O.- KHAKHARISAL P.S.- MUKALMUA, DIST.- NALBARI, ASSAM.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 7 ORS TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, ELEMENTARY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, ASSAM, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6.

¶9

2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM FINANCE DEPARTMENT ASSAM DISPUR GUWAHATI-6.

¶10

3:THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI- 19.

¶11

4:THE DIRECTOR OF PENSION ASSAM HOUSEFED COMPLEX NEW BUILDING DISPUR-6.

¶12

Page No.# 2/15

¶13

5:THE DISTRICT ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER NALBARI DISTRICT P.O. P.S. AND DISTRICT- NALBARI ASSAM. 6:THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS NALBARI DISTRICT P.O. P.S. AND DISTRICT- NALBARI ASSAM. 7:THE BLOCK ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER PASHIM NALBARI P.O. P.S. AND DISTRICT- NALBARI ASSAM. 8:THE TREASURY OFFICER NALBARI P.O. P.S. AND DISTRICT- NALBARI ASSAM

¶14

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A M BARBHUIYA, S. M. ZINNA,MS S R MAZARBHUIYA,MS A BEGUM

¶15

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, ELEM. EDU, SC, FINANCE,GA, ASSAM

¶16

Linked Case : Cont.Cas(C)/130/2024

¶17

BAHARUL ISLAM S/O LATE SOLEMAN ALI VILL- KHAKHARISAL P.O.-KHAKHARISAL P.S.-MUKALMUA DIST-NALBARI ASSAM

¶18

Page No.# 3/15

¶19

VERSUS

¶20

BHABESH DEKA and ANR. THE DIRECTOR OF PENSION ASSAM HOUSEFED COMPLEX NEW BUILDING DISPUR-6

¶21

2:BIKASH DAS THE DIRECTOR OF PENSION ASSAM HOUSEFED COMPLEX NEW BUILDING DISPUR-6

¶22

-----------Advocate for : MR. A M BARBHUIYA Advocate for : MR B DEURI-r2 appearing for BHABESH DEKA and ANR.

¶23

BEFORE

¶24

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN

¶25

Advocate for the petitioner : Mr. A.M. Barbhuiya.

¶26

Advocate for the respondents : Mr. B. Kaushik, SC, Elem. Edu.

¶27

(R-1, 3, 5, 6 and 7); Mr. A. Chaliha, SC, Finance (R-2 & 8); Mr. B. Dewri, GA, Assam (R-4).

¶28

Date of hearing : 20.08.2025

¶29

Date of judgment : 02.09.2025

¶30

JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV)

¶31

Heard Mr. A.M. Barbhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. Kaushik, learned standing counsel for the respondents in Elementary Education Department, being respondent No. 1, 3, 5, 6, & 7, Mr. A. Chaliha, learned

¶32

Page No.# 4/15

¶33

standing counsel for the respondents in Finance Department, being respondent No. 2 & 8 and Mr. B. Dewri, learned Government Advocate for respondent No.4.

¶34

2. In this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuing direction to the respondent authorities to release the arrear pension of the petitioner from 01/02/2018 to 30/06/2021 by modifying the order dated 11/08/2023 (Annexure-6) passed by the Director of Pension, Assam.

¶35

3. It is to be noted here that the Director of Pension, Assam (Respondent No. 4) vide order dated 11/08/2023 granted the monthly pension to the petitioner w.e.f. 01/07/2021, only, instead of 01/02/2018.

¶36

4. The petitioner has also preferred one contempt petition, being Contempt Case (C) No. 130/2024, for wilful disobedience/violation of the judgment and order, dated 25/04/2023, passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.1873/2022 and W.P. (C) No.4936/2021, wherein a Co-ordinate bench of this Court has issued following directions:-

¶37

“20. Consequently, this Court therefore disposes of both the writ petition with the following observations and directions.

¶38

(i) The communication dated 13.09.2021 issued by the Block Element Education Officer is set aside and quashed.

¶39

(ii) The respondent authorities are directed not to make any recovery of the petitioner in any mode including from the retirement dues of petitioner, the amount of Rs.17,07,100/- which was computed to be excess payment drawn by the petitioner on account of overstay.

¶40

Page No.# 5/15

¶41

(iii)The respondent authorities are directed to fix the retirement benefit of the petitioner on the basis of the petitioner's actual date of superannuation i.e. on 30.01.2018 which is based upon the date of birth recorded in the HSLC certificate.

¶42

(iv) The respondent authorities including the Elementary Education Department and the Director of Pension are directed to immediately process the pension of the petitioner so that the petitioner receives his pension as well as all other pensionary benefits at the earliest. The exercise be completed within a period of 4 (four) months from the certified copy of the instant judgment and order is served upon the of Elementary Education as well as to the Director of Pension.

¶43

(v) This Court further directs that upon the formalities being completed by the Elementary Education Department as well as the Director of Pension, the concerned Treasury Officer shall do the needful so that the petitioner receives his arrear pension, regular pension as well as the pensionary benefits to which the petitioner is otherwise is entitled to.

¶44

5. The background facts, leading to filing of the present writ petition; are briefly stated as under:-

¶45

“The petitioner was initially appointed on 17/11/1999, as a Stipendiary Teacher at Gadira L.P. School, Nalbari on fixed pay of Rs.900/-. Thereafter, on completion of Basic Training Course departmentally, he got regular scale of pay. Lastly, the petitioner was serving as Head Teacher at Mohbiyeni L.P. School, Nalbari.

¶46

The date of birth of petitioner, as per his HSLC Certificate dated

¶47

Page No.# 6/15

¶48

11/06/1978 issued by the Board of Secondary Education, Assam, is 01/01/1958. He was supposed to be superannuated on 31/01/2018, on attaining the superannuation age of 60 years. But, the department, inadvertently over stayed him in service and let him retire only on 10/08/2021, by issuing the retirement notice, dated 10/08/2021, issued by the Block Elementary Education Officer, Paschim Nalbari of Nalbari District. Accordingly, the petitioner over stayed and served in the department from 01/02/2018 to 10/08/2021 and received salary all along from the department, except for the month of July and 10 (ten) days of August 2021.

¶49

Thereafter, the Block Elementary Education Officer, Paschim Nalbari of Nalbari District had issued a letter dated 13/09/2021 along with statements of alleged excess drawl for over stay/service to the petitioner that he has to recover/repay his salary of Rs.17,07,100/(Rupees Seventeen Lakhs, Seven Thousand and One Hundred) only through the Treasury Challan for the period of his over stay/service in the department from 01/02/2018 to 30/06/2021, for preparation of pension etc. and declined to entertain and/or process the pension papers of the petitioner.

¶50

The petitioner then filed two writ petitions, being W.P.(C) No.4936/2021 and W.P.(C) No.1873/2022 before this Court for releasing his pension w.e.f. 01/02/2018 without deduction. Then this Court, vide order dated 25/04/2023, had disposed of the said two writ petitions directing the respondents not to recover salary from the petitioner which was drawn by him during the over stay period and to grant him pension and arrear pension from his actual date of

¶51

Page No.# 7/15

¶52

retirement as on 31/01/2018.

¶53

That in compliance with judgment and order dated 25/04/2023 passed by this Hon'ble Court in W.P.(C) No. 1873/2022 and W.P.(C) No.4936/2021, no recovery was carried out from him for the aforesaid over stay period. But now, the Director of Pension, Assam vide order dated 11/08/2023, granted the monthly pension to the petitioner only w.e.f. 01/07/2021, instead of 01/02/2018. Thus, the petitioner is illegally denied his arrear pension from 01/02/2018 to 30/06/2021.”

¶54

6. The Director of Pension (respondent No. 4.) has filed his affidavit-inopposition. It stated in the said affidavit that in compliance of the order of this Court, dated 25/04/2023, passed in WP (C) No. 1873/2022, and as per the pension proposal submitted by the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Nalbari, vide letter No DIS/NAL/DP/2022-23/601 dated 20/06/2023., his office has finalized the pension case of the petitioner @ Rs. 11590/- w.e.f. 01/07/2021 and DCRG (death cum retirement gratuity) @ Rs. 3,38,958/-, vide PPO No. ADP/PPO/GPO/2023/088042, dated 11/08/2023, by taking into account the last basic pay as Rs. 32,190/- i.e. the last pay drawn by the pensioner on the actual date of retirement, i.e. on 30/01/2018, and without making recovery of the salary of Rs. 17,07,100/-, drawn by the petitioner for the overstay period w.e.f. 01/02/2018 to 30/06/2021, and other pensionary benefits, such as GIS, leave encashment etc. are not dealt by this Directorate and the concerned Head of Department has to deal with the same.

¶55

6.1. It is also stated that this Court, vide order dtd. 25/04/2023, passed in WP(C) No. 1873/2022, has specifically directed not to make recovery of Rs. 17,07,100/- from the retirement dues of the petitioner and fix the retirement benefits on the basis of the petitioner's actual date of superannuation i.e.

¶56

Page No.# 8/15

¶57

30/01/2018. And accordingly, in pursuance of the direction of this Court the Pension & DCRG of the petitioner has been fixed on the basis of the petitioner's actual date of retirement i.e. 31/01/2018, as the petitioner had already drawn regular salary w.e.f. 01/02/2018 to 30/06/2021 and since the salary of the above stated period has already been drawn by the petitioner, the petitioner's regular pension has been granted w.e.f. 01.07.2021. It is also stated that in the judgement dated 25/04/2023, passed in WP(C) No. 1873/2022, at 12th line at page 6 (SL page 22 in aforesaid writ petition) it was held that "It is the further case of the petitioner that the petitioner is further entitled to the provisional pension from 01.02.2018 onwards but the petitioner was only granted the provisional pension from 01.03.2021 to 31.01.2022." And since the petitioner had already drawn the salary for the overstay period, therefore the issue of provisional pension, which is basically given to sustain until the regular pension is finalised, is unwarranted, since the petitioner was paid salary for the overstay period with all cumulative increment. Therefore, the petitioner has been given the pension fixing the pay as on the actual date of retirement i.e. 31/01/2018.

¶58

7. In the reply affidavit, the petitioner stated that his date of birth is 01/01/1958 as per his HSLC Certificate, dated 11/06/1978, issued by the Board of Secondary Education, Assam; and accordingly, he was supposed to be allowed to go on retirement on 31/01/2018, on attaining the superannuation age of 60 years. But, the department inadvertently overstayed him in service and let him retire only on 10/08/2021, as per the retirement notice, dated 10/08/2021, issued by the Block Elementary Education Officer, Paschim Nalbari of Nalbari District. Then he had overstayed and served in the department from 01/02/2018 to 10/08/2021 and received salary all along from the department,

¶59

Page No.# 9/15

¶60

except for the month of July and 10 (ten) days of August 2021. Thereafter, he was also granted provisional pension with effect from 01/03/2021 as per order dated 11/02/2022 passed by the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Nalbari and subsequently, he was granted regular pension as usual in accordance with law. However, the respondent has not been paid his arrear pension from 01/02/2018 to 28/02/2021, ignoring the specific judgment and order dated 25/04/2023, passed by this Hon'ble Court in W.P.(C) No.1873/2022 and W.P.(C) No.4936/2021, wherein this Court had observed that the steps are also required to be taken against those erring officials for whose lack of diligence and vigilance it had led to overstay in service. This Court also observed in the order dated 07/03/2025 of the present writ proceeding that the stand taken by the Director is prima facie suggestive of contempt of court.

¶61

8. Mr. Barbhuiya, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that due to lack of diligence of the respondent authorities, the petitioner had overstayed in service. Mr. Barbhuiya has pointed it out that date of birth of the petitioner is 01/01/1958, as per his HSLC Certificate, and he was supposed to be superannuated on 31/01/2018, at the age of 60 years. The department had let him retire only on 10/08/2021, as per notice, dated 10/08/2021, and the petitioner had overstayed and served in the department from 01/02/2018 to 10/08/2021 and received salary, except for the month of July and 10 (ten) days of August 2021. He was also granted provisional pension with effect from 01/03/2021, and subsequently, he was granted regular pension. But, his arrear pension from 01/02/2018 to 28/02/2021, has not been paid inspite of order dated 25/04/2023, in W.P.(C) No.1873/2022 and W.P.(C) No.4936/2021. Mr. Barbhuiya further submits that the Director of Pension, Assam vide order dated 11/08/2023, granted the monthly pension to the petitioner only w.e.f.

¶62

Page No.# 10/15

¶63

01/07/2021, instead of 01/02/2018 and illegally denied his arrear pension from 01/02/2018 to 30/06/2021 and therefore, it is contended to allow the petition.

¶64

9. Per contra, Mr. Dewri, the learned Government Advocate for the respondent No. 4 stated that as directed by this Court, the Pension & DCRG of the petitioner has been fixed on the basis of the petitioner's actual date of retirement i.e. 31/01/2018. Mr. Dewri also submits that as the petitioner had already drawn regular salary w.e.f 01/02/2018 to 30/06/2021, his regular pension has been granted w.e.f, 01.07.2021. And since the petitioner had already been paid salary for the overstayed period with all cumulative increment, he has been given the pension fixing the pay as on the actual date of retirement i.e. 31/01/2018, and that double benefit cannot be granted for the overstay period and that the petitioner is responsible for the overstay period as he could have informed the respondent authority about his date of superannuation. In support of his submission, Mr. Dewri has referred to a decision of this Court in WP(C) No. 2254/2023.

¶65

10. Having heard the submission of learned counsel for both the parties, I have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties and also perused the decision referred by Mr. Dewri, the learned Government Advocate for respondent No. 4. Also, I have gone through the order dated 25/04/2023, in W.P.(C) No.1873/2022 and W.P.(C) No.4936/2021.

¶66

11. In view of the rival submission of learned counsel for the parties, the issue to be decided in this petition is formulated as under:-

¶67

(i) Whether the petitioner is entitled to pension for the overstay period i.e. from 01/02/2018 to 30/06/2021, while he had had already been paid salary for the said period with all cumulative increment?

¶68

Page No.# 11/15

¶69

12. It appears that the basic facts herein this case are not disputed. As per his HSLC Certificate, dated 11/06/1978, issued by the Board of Secondary Education, Assam, the date of birth of the petitioner is 01/01/1958. As such, he was supposed to superannuate on 31/01/2018 on attaining the age of 60 years. But, the department inadvertently overstayed him in service and let him retire only on 10/08/2021, by issuing retirement notice, dated 10/08/2021, by the Block Elementary Education Officer, Paschim Nalbari of Nalbari District. The petitioner then overstayed in service and served the department from 01/02/2018 to 10/08/2021. Accordingly, direction was issued by the respondent authority to make recovery of Rs. 17,07,100/- from the retirement dues of the petitioner.

¶70

13. The petitioner then challenged the said direction in W.P.(C) No.1873/2022 and W.P.(C) No.4936/2021. Then this Court vide order dated 25/04/2023, had directed not to recover the said amount. Thereafter, as per the pension proposal submitted by the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Nalbari, vide letter No DIS/NAL/DP/2022-23/601 dated 20/06/2023, the office of the respondent No. 4 has finalized the pension of the petitioner @ Rs. 11,590/- w.e.f 01/07/2021, and DCRG (death cum retirement gratuity) @ Rs. 3,38,958/-, vide PPO No. ADP/PPO/GPO/2023/088042, dtd. 11/08/2023 by taking in to account the last basic pay as Rs. 32,190/-, i.e., the last pay drawn by the pensioner on the actual date of retirement i.e. on 30/01/2018 and without making recovery of the salary of Rs. 17,07,100/- drawn by the petitioner for the overstay period w.e.f. 01/02/2018 to 30/06/2021.

¶71

14. In the order, dated 25/04/2023, so passed in W.P.(C) No.1873/2022 and W.P.(C) No.4936/2021, the directions issued are to fix the retirement benefit of the petitioner on the basis of the petitioner's actual date of superannuation i.e.

¶72

Page No.# 12/15

¶73

on 30.01.2018, which is based upon the date of birth recorded in the HSLC certificate and it was also directed to immediately process the pension of the petitioner so that the petitioner receives his pension as well as all other pensionary benefits at the earliest, within a period of 4 (four) months from the certified copy of the judgment and order.

¶74

15. There was, however, no specific direction as to from which date the petitioner has to be paid the arrear pension and pensionary benefits. But, the logical corollary that can be drawn is that it should be from actual date of superannuation i.e. on 30.01.2018.

¶75

16. Further, from a perusal of the Annexure-6, correctness of which is being challenged in this petition, with a prayer for modification of the same, reveals that the petitioner has been granted the pension with effect from 01.07.2021. This letter was dated 11.08.2023, and the judgment and order was passed on 25.04.2023, and therefore, the direction in the order was carried out within the stipulated period.

¶76

16.1. The letter, (Annexure-6) reads as under :-

¶77

To,

¶78

The Treasury Officer, Belsor Treasury,

¶79

Sir,

¶80

I am to forward herewith P.O. No. ADP/PPO/GPO/2023/088042 in favour of Shri/Smti. Baharul Islam Retd. HT for @ Rs. 11590/-(Rupees Eleven Thousand Five Hundred Ninety only) p.m. w.e.f. 01/07/2021 onwards and to request that the pensioner's portion of the order may be made over to him/her after obtaining his/her signature on the

¶81

Page No.# 13/15

¶82

disburser's portion after you have satisfied yourself of his/her identity and payments noted on both the portions as they are made. The slip bearing the attested specimen signature/left hand thump impressions along with photograph is also enclosed.

¶83

If the Pensioner wishes to draw his/her pension through an authorised agent, the Pensioner's portion of the P.P.O. may on application by the pensioner, be sent to the authorised agent through registered post provided the latter has executed a bond of indemnity to refund overpayments. A written acknowledgement of the receipt of pensioner's portion of the payment order should, however, be obtained from the pensioner through the grant for record. A certificate from the pensioner's D.D.O to the effect of drawl/nom=drawl of provisional pension/Family Pension/DCRG duly countersigned by respective Treasury Officer may be obtained and the amount shown therein, if any, may be recorded from first payment.

¶84

Please acknowledge the receipt.

¶85

Sd/.

¶86

Director of pension,

¶87

Assam

¶88

17. That being so, it cannot be said that there was any wilful violation of the order of this Court dated 25.04.2023. And on such count, the contempt petition, being Cont. Cas (C) No. 130/2024 deserves to be dismissed and accordingly, the same stands dismissed.

¶89

18. It is also to be noted here that the petitioner had overstayed from 01.02.2018 to 30.06.2021. So, it becomes clear that no pension was granted to the petitioner for the period of his overstay. The pension was granted to him with effect from 01.07.2021. The logic behind denying the pension for the

¶90

Page No.# 14/15

¶91

overstay period, as per the affidavit-in-opposition of respondent No.4, and also from the submission of Mr. Dewri, is that since the petitioner had already drawn the salary for the overstay period, with all cumulative increment, the petitioner has been given the pension fixing the pay as on the actual date of retirement i.e. 31/01/2018, but with effect from 01.07.2021.

¶92

19. The stand, so taken by the respondent No.4, appears to be logical as because the petitioner is not entitled to salary and pensionery benefits concurrently. If the petitioner is paid salary up to 01.07.2021, the entitlement of pension cannot be extended up to that date. Reference in this context can be made to following decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Coal India Ltd. v. Ardhendu Bikas Bhattacharjee, reported in (2005) 12 SCC 201, wherein it has been held as under:-

¶93

“ 9. It is, however, stated that during this period the respondent has worked as an employee of the appellant Company and has superannuated from service on attaining the requisite age on the basis of the duplicate matriculation certificate. He has been paid his salary and allowances in accordance with the Rules. It would be harsh to direct the respondent to refund the pay and allowances paid to him during this period, particularly when he has actually worked pursuant to orders of the Court. However, we direct that for service benefits including post-retirement benefits, the service rendered by the respondent shall be reckoned on the basis of the certificate originally submitted by him disclosing his date of birth as 31-12-1938. His date of retirement shall be determined on the basis of the aforesaid date of birth. For the additional service rendered by the respondent, after such retirement, apart from pay and allowances already paid to him, no other service benefit shall be given to him.”

¶94

20. Again in the case of State of U.P. v. Shiv Narain Upadhyaya,

¶95

Page No.# 15/15

¶96

(2005) 6 SCC 49 Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:-

¶97

“ 14. Above being the position the High Court was clearly in error in holding that the date of birth of the respondent employee was 1-9-1939, contrary to what has been recorded in the service book. We find that the respondent employee had rendered service till the order dated 31-1-1991 was passed. It would not be equitable to direct refund of salary received by him up to 31-1-1991 beyond the actual date of superannuation i.e. 30-9-1990. However, the period beyond the actual date of superannuation i.e. from 30-9-1990 to 31-1-1991 shall not be reckoned towards his retiral benefits.”

¶98

21. In the result, this Court finds this petition devoid of merit and accordingly, the same stands dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

¶99

J U D G E

¶100

Comparing Assistant

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
PPO No. ADP/PPO/GPO/2023/088042 dated 11/08/2023 (Annexure-6) issued by the Director of Pension, Assam fixing monthly pension @ Rs. 11,590/- w.e.f. 01/07/2021 (instead of from 01/02/2018), whose modification the petitioner sought for release of arrear pension from 01/02/2018 to 30/06/2021.¶35
Director of Pension, Assam (Respondent No. 4) · 11/08/2023
Prior proceeding
Petitioner appointed 17/11/1999 as Stipendiary Teacher, Gadira L.P. School, Nalbari on fixed pay of Rs. 900/-; last served as Head Teacher, Mohbiyeni L.P. School, Nalbari.¶45
Prior proceeding
Date of birth per HSLC Certificate dated 11/06/1978 (Board of Secondary Education, Assam) is 01/01/1958; due date of superannuation 31/01/2018 on attaining age 60.¶48
Prior proceeding
Department inadvertently overstayed petitioner in service; retirement effected only on 10/08/2021 by retirement notice dated 10/08/2021 of the Block Elementary Education Officer, Paschim Nalbari; petitioner served and drew salary from 01/02/2018 to 10/08/2021 (except July and 10 days of August 2021).¶48
Prior proceeding
Letter dated 13/09/2021 of the Block Elementary Education Officer, Paschim Nalbari demanded repayment of Rs. 17,07,100/- as alleged excess salary drawl for the overstay period (01/02/2018 to 30/06/2021) and declined to process pension papers.¶49
Prior proceeding
Petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.4936/2021 and W.P.(C) No.1873/2022 seeking release of pension w.e.f. 01/02/2018 without deduction.¶50
Prior proceeding
By order dated 25/04/2023 a Co-ordinate bench disposed of both writ petitions, directing no recovery of overstay-period salary and grant of pension/arrear pension from actual date of retirement (31/01/2018); it also quashed the communication dated 13.09.2021 and directed processing of pension within four months and fixation of retirement benefit on the actual superannuation date 30.01.2018 per the HSLC-recorded date of birth.¶50
Prior proceeding
Direction (iii) of the order dated 25/04/2023 (quoted in the present judgment): retirement benefit to be fixed on the petitioner's actual date of superannuation i.e. 30.01.2018, based on the HSLC-recorded date of birth.¶41
Prior proceeding
Compliance: no recovery was carried out; pursuant to the pension proposal of the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Nalbari (Letter No DIS/NAL/DP/2022-23/601 dated 20/06/2023), Respondent No. 4 finalised pension @ Rs. 11,590/- w.e.f. 01/07/2021 and DCRG @ Rs. 3,38,958/- (PPO No. ADP/PPO/GPO/2023/088042 dated 11/08/2023) on last basic pay Rs. 32,190/- without recovery of Rs. 17,07,100/-.¶54
Prior proceeding
Petitioner was granted provisional pension w.e.f. 01/03/2021 by order dated 11/02/2022 of the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Nalbari, and subsequently regular pension; claim remained unpaid arrear pension from 01/02/2018 to 28/02/2021.¶60
Prior proceeding
Interim observation in this writ proceeding: by order dated 07/03/2025 this Court had noted that the stand taken by the Director was prima facie suggestive of contempt of court.¶60
Prior proceeding
Petitioner filed Contempt Case (C) No. 130/2024 (linked case Cont.Cas(C)/130/2024) alleging wilful disobedience/violation of the judgment and order dated 25/04/2023 passed in W.P.(C) No.1873/2022 and W.P.(C) No.4936/2021; disposed of in the present judgment.¶36

Baharul Islam v. Bhabesh Deka and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baharul Islam v. Bhabesh Deka and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prasanta Kumar Das Vs Jadav Saikia

M/S. N.C. Das and Company Vs Anil Kumar and Anr.

Sourav Atul Saikia Vs Dr. Ravi Kota, IAS

Tapasi Nath Vs Mamata Hojai, Aes and 3 Ors.

Hd Lalnunzira and 9 Ors. Vs Sh Khilli Ram Meena and 4 Ors.

East India Supply Centre Vs Dilip Kumar Borah, IAS and Ors.

Iunush Ali and 19 Ors. Vs Preetom Saikia and 3 Ors..

Ashok Singh Vs Mamata Hojai and 2 Ors.

Tapasi Nath Vs Mamata Hojai, Aes and 3 Ors.

Khot Manoj Kashinath Vs the Union of India and 2 Ors.

Sabita Bhattacherjee Vs the State of Assam

Golapjan Begum Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Anu Kumar Yadav Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.