Ranu Das @ Mrs. Ranumai Das Vs the State of Assam and 7 Ors.

¶1

Page No.# 1/7

¶2

GAHC010236942025

¶3

2025:GAU-AS:15020

¶4

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

¶5

Case No. : WP(C)/6278/2025

¶6

RANU DAS @ MRS. RANUMAI DAS W/O- LATE LUKU RANJAN DAS, VILLAGE- BALIGAON, P.O.DHAKUAKHANA, DIST.- LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM, PIN- 787055

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

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

¶9

2:THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI-19 3:THE DISTRICT ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER LAKHIMPUR DISTRICT- LAKHIMPUR ASSAM PIN- 787001 4:THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS DHAKUAKHANA DISTRICT- LAKHIMPUR ASSAM PIN- 787055 5:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM FINANCE DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-6

¶10

Page No.# 2/7

¶11

6:THE TREASURY OFFICER DHAKUAKHANA SUB-TREASURY DIST.- LAKHIMPUR ASSAM PIN- 787055

¶12

7:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM PENSION AND PUBLIC GRIEVANCES DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-6

¶13

8:THE DIRECTOR OF PENSION ASSAM DISPUR GUWAHATI-0

¶14

Advocate for the Petitioner : MD. S ALOM, MS. A BEGUM,MR. M S ALAM

¶15

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

¶16

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN

¶17

ORDER

¶18

07.11.2025

¶19

Heard Mr. S. Alom, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P.K. Borah, learned standing counsel for the respondents No.1 – 4; Ms. R. M. Baruah, learned standing counsel for the respondent No. 5 & 6; and Mr. B. Deori, learned Government Advocate for the respondent No. 7 & 8.

¶20

2. In this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, namely, Mrs. Ranu Das @ Runumai Das, has prayed for setting aside the process for recovery of excess payment of Rs. 80,195/ from her, if any, initiated by the respondent authorities, to waive the excess payment of Rs. 80,195/ only, which was received by the petitioner due to wrong fixation of her pay scale on 20.09.2013 by the respondent authorities and also to direct the respondent authorities to regularize the pension of the petitioner and to release the pensionary

¶21

Page No.# 3/7

¶22

benefits of the petitioner.

¶23

3. The background facts, leading to filing of the present petition, are adumbrated herein below:-

¶24

“The petitioner, namely Mrs. Ranu Das @ Mrs. Ranumai Das had been working as an Assistant Teacher of Kalakata Gosaibari L.P. School, in the district of Lakhimpur. She retired from her service on superannuation on 31.01.2024. While the petitioner was in service her pay, as on 20.09.2013, was wrongly fixed by the respondent authorities at Rs. 12,860/- pm instead of Rs. 12,660/pm, which resulted in an excess drawal of Rs. 80,195/-(Rupees Eighty Thousand One Hundred Ninety Five) only, by the petitioner, without her knowledge.

¶25

Then after her retirement on 31.01.2024, the Respondent No. 4 had prepared the statement of excess drawal (Annexure- 4) and submitted proposal before the Government of Assam, Elementary Education Department, for waiver of the excess drawal amount, as the said excess drawal was due to wrong fixation made by the respondent authorities. After retirement from her service on 31.01.2024, the respondent authorities had not waived the said excess drawal amount till date and thereby, her pension has not been regularized.

¶26

Being aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking the relief(s) as aforesaid.”

¶27

4. Mr. Alom, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in no way involved in wrong fixation of her pay and it is the respondent authorities, who are responsible for the same. Mr. Alom also submits that the petitioner had already retired from her service and on account of the alleged excess drawal of the

¶28

Page No.# 4/7

¶29

amount her pension has not been regularized and as a result, her pensionary benefits also not been received by her and the same causes much hardship to her. It is the further submission of Mr. Alom that recovery of the said excess drawal would be in violation of the settled principles of law as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shyam Babu Verma and Ors -Vs- Union of India and Ors, reported in (1994) 2 SCC 521 and in the case of State of Punjab and Ors. -Vs- Rafiq Masih (White Washer) , reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334, as well as in terms of Clause 4 of the Notification dated 14.06.2019, which is annexed with the petition as Annexure- 5.

¶30

4.1. Further Mr. Alom submits that this Court has also decided numbers of cases from time to time on the same issue and one of such Order was passed on 01.10.2024 in W.P.(C) No. 5121/2024 which is annexed with petition as Annexure-7 and another Order was passed on 07.03.2025 in W.P.(C) No. 531/2025, which is annexed with the petition as Annexure-8, and the case of the petitioner is covered by the aforementioned Orders and therefore, he submits that this petition may be disposed of in similar line directing respondent authorities to waive the excess payment of Rs. 80,195/-and regularize the pension of the petitioner and release the pensionary benefits at the earliest.

¶31

5. Per contra, the learned standing counsel for the respondent authorities submits that they have no objection in the event of disposing of the present petition directing the respondent authorities to settle the pension of the petitioner in the light of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shyam Babu Verma (supra) and Rafiq Masih (supra) as well as in terms of Clause 4 of the Notification dated 14.06.2019 (Annexure- 5).

¶32

6. Having heard the submission of learned counsel for both the parties this Court

¶33

Page No.# 5/7

¶34

has gone through the petition and the annexure enclosed therewith and also gone through the decisions in Shyam Babu Verma (supra) and Rafiq Masih (supra) as well as in terms of Clause 4 of the Office Memorandum, dated 14.06.2019 (Annexure- 5). Also this Court has gone through the orders dated 01.10.2024 in W.P.(C) No. 5121/2024,-Annexure-7 and 07.03.2025 in W.P.(C) No. 531/2025, -Annexure-8.

¶35

7. It appears that the basic facts, herein this petition, are not in dispute. The petitioner was an Assistant Teacher of Kalakata Gosaibari L.P. School, in the district of Lakhimpur and she retired from her service on attaining her age of superannuation on 31.01.2024. While the petitioner was in service her pay, as on 20.09.2013, was wrongly fixed by the respondent authorities at Rs. 12,860/- pm, instead of at Rs. 12,660/- pm, as a result there was an excess drawal of Rs. 80,195/-(Rupees Eighty Thousand One Hundred Ninety Five) only, by the petitioner, without her knowledge. Though a proposal was submitted by respondent No.4 to the Government of Assam, Elementary Education Department, for waiver of the excess drawal amount, the same failed to evoke any response. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner is in no way responsible for excess drawal as well as for wrong fixation of her pay.

¶36

8. The legal proposition with respect to recovery of excess drawal is well settled in catena of decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court. Reference in this context can be made to the decisions in Shyam Babu Verma (supra) and Rafiq Masih (supra). On the basis of the decision in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra) , the Principal Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Finance Department has also issued one Office Memorandum, dated 14.06.2019 (Annexure – 5), clarifying as to when the recovery is impermissible in law. In Clause 4 of the said Office Memorandum, it is stated as under:-

¶37

Page No.# 6/7

¶38

“ 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 been 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:-

¶39

(i) Recovery from employees belonging to Class -III and Class-IV service (for Group 'C' and Group 'D' service).

¶40

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

¶41

(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.

¶42

(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.

¶43

(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.”

¶44

9. In the case in hand, the petitioner had already retired from her service on attaining her age of superannuation on 31.01.2024. Since then more than one year ten months elapsed. The petitioner’s pension has not been regularized since then and other pensionary benefits had also not been released on account of alleged

¶45

Page No.# 7/7

¶46

excess drawal of Rs. 80,195/ which was primarily due to wrong fixation of her pay scale and that the petitioner is in no way involved in wrong fixation of her pay and it is the respondent authorities, who are responsible for the same.

¶47

10. Under the given factual and legal matrix, this Court is inclined to dispose of this petition at this motion stage itself by directing the respondent authorities to waive the excess payment of Rs. 80,195/-and regularize the pension of the petitioner and release the pensionary benefits at the earliest, in the light of the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shyam Babu Verma (supra) and Rafiq Masih (supra) as well as in terms of Clause 4 of the Office Memorandum, dated 14.06.2019 (Annexure- 5).

¶48

11. Since the petitioner has already retired from service in the year 2024, let the aforesaid exercise be carried out with in a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The petitioner shall obtain a certified copy of this order and place the same before the respondent authorities with in a period of one week from today.

¶49

12. The parties have to bear their own costs.

¶50

JUDGE

¶51

Comparing Assistant

Ranu Das @ Mrs. Ranumai Das v. the State of Assam and 7 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranu Das @ Mrs. Ranumai Das v. the State of Assam and 7 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Habia Khatun and Ors. Vs the State of Assam and Ors.

Mustt Phul Begum Vs on the Demise of Abdur Rahman, Smti Saifur Nahar Begum and Ors.

Shri Debi Prasad Roy Choudhury Vs the State of Assam and Ors.

Smt Kabita Das Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Bipul Mech Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Abdus Sobur Mollah Vs the State of Assam and Ors.