Y. Digendra Singha Vs Union of India and 2 Ors. — Gauhati HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Y. Digendra Singha Vs Union of India and 2 Ors. — Gauhati HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of by setting aside the letter dated 28.05.2018; respondents restrained from recovering the excess payment (arising from erroneous ACP/MACP calculation) from the retired petitioner's pensionary benefits, while remaining free to fix the pension at the correct rate according to actual entitlement based on service records; no cost(s) awarded.

Issue for consideration

Whether excess salary paid to the petitioner owing to erroneous upgradations on the ground of ACP/MACP benefits, in respect of which the petitioner bore no involvement or fault in the erroneous calculation of pay, can lawfully be recovered after his superannuation from his pensionary and retiral benefits.

Ratio / Principle

This Court holds that recovery from the pay of a retired employee cannot have judicial approval.

Key takeaways

The respondents are restrained from making recovery of any excess payment made to the petitioner on the basis of an erroneous calculation of the benefits of the ACP/MACP, which may have been granted to him prior to his superannuation but are sought to be recovered now from his pensionary benefits.ratio¶7
The respondents remain at liberty to fix the petitioner's pensionary benefits at a correct rate as per the actual ACP/MACP benefits the petitioner would be eligible to, based on his service records.ratio¶7

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Gauhati High Court (single Judge, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Mazumdar), order dated 09.02.2026 in WP(C)/1372/2019: Y. Digendra Singha, a retired Warrant Officer (Cipher), challenged the proposed recovery of Rs. 6,42,229/- paid in excess owing to erroneous upgradations granted on the ground of ACP/MACP benefits, the recovery being sought from his pensionary and other retiral benefits after superannuation. Counsel for the petitioner urged that, there being no allegation of the petitioner's involvement in the erroneous pay calculation, the law laid down in State of Punjab and Ors. vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Others, (2015) 4 SCC 334 forbids such recovery. The learned Deputy SGI fairly conceded that the records did not reveal any hand of the petitioner in the pay calculation and that the Supreme Court judgment would apply. Having gone through the Rafiq Masih judgment, the Court held that recovery from the pay of a retired employee cannot have judicial approval, restrained the respondents from recovering the excess payment made on the basis of the erroneous ACP/MACP calculation granted prior to superannuation, while clarifying that the respondents remain at liberty to fix the pensionary benefits at the correct rate per the petitioner's actual ACP/MACP entitlement based on service records. The writ petition was disposed of by setting aside the letter dated 28.05.2018; no cost(s).

Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010041462019

2026:GAU-AS:1739

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

Case No. : WP(C)/1372/2019

Y. DIGENDRA SINGHA

S/O- LT Y. INDERJIT SINGHA, VILL AND P.O. JHARAKHUL, DIST- CACHAR, ASSAM, PIN- 788119

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA AND 2 ORS. REP. BY THE SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI- 110001

2:DIRECTOR GENERAL OF ASSAM RIFLES SHILLONG MEGHALAYA-11

3:THE COMMANDANT 25TH ASSAM RIFLES C/O 99AP

Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. S BORA, MS. N CHAKRABORTY

Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I., MR. D C BORAH (C.G.C, R1-R3)

BEFORE

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR ORDER

09.02.2026

Heard Ms S Bora, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr R K D Choudhury, learned Deputy SGI, who has appeared in the matter, on being informed that the learned CGC was not available for the day.

Page No.# 2/3

The matter relates to a grievance against the proposed recovery of erroneous salary given to the petitioner. The recovery is sought to be made after the retirement of the petitioner, from the pensionary and other benefits arising on the superannuation of the petitioner.

The case of the respondents is that the petitioner had been afforded some erroneous upgradations on the ground of the ACP/MACP benefits, and, therefore, when the pensionary benefits were being calculated, it was seen that the petitioner had been paid an excess amount of Rs. 6,42,229/-, which was required to be recovered.

The stand of the respondents in the affidavit-in-opposition filed in this case is that the pension of the petitioner has been fixed at the corrected rate and the petitioner is also drawing the same.

Ms Bora, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is no allegation that the petitioner was involved in the erroneous calculation while fixing the pay of the petitioner and, therefore, as per the law laid down in State of Punjab and Ors. vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Others; reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334, the recovery from the retiral benefits and pension of an incumbent is not allowed in law.

The learned Deputy SGI has fairly submitted that since the records do not reveal that the petitioner had any hand in the calculation of the pay to be fixed on the ground of ACP/MACP, the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court would be applicable in this case, and, therefore, it would not be proper and legal to recover from the pensionary benefits of the petitioner. The petitioner had retired as a Warrant Officer (Cipher).

Having gone through the Judgment of the Rafiq Masih (supra), this Court is of the view that the recovery from the pay of a retired employee cannot have judicial approval, and, therefore, in this particular case, the respondents are restrained from making recovery of any excess payment made to the petitioner on the basis of an erroneous calculation of the benefits of the ACP/MACP, which may have been granted to him prior

Page No.# 3/3

to his superannuation, but are sought to be recovered now from his pensionary benefits. It is, however, made clear that the respondents would be at liberty to fix the pensionary benefits of the petitioner at a correct rate as per the actual benefits of ACP/MACP that the petitioner would be eligible to, based on his service records.

The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of, by setting aside the letter dated 28.05.2018.

No cost(s).

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant