Kumud Chandra Dutta v. the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Gauhati HC3 May 2026WP(C)/2249/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Non-payment of pension; excess drawal of pay; pay fixation as on 01.05.2001 (Rs.4,480/- vs Rs.4,120/-); excess computed at Rs.2,40,660.70; disposal resting on State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (2015) 4 SCC 334 (para 18 invoked by petitioner); retired Assistant Teacher; Rangia Higher Secondary School; Kamrup District Circle; Directorate of Pension Assam; Gauhati High Court; WP(C)/2249/2026; Nelson Sailo, J.; direction to process and pay pension within 2 months; decided 04.05.2026.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with a direction to the respondent authorities to process and pay the petitioner's pension without further delay, within the outer limit of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order. ¶[6.]

Kumud Chandra Dutta Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors. — Gauhati HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010079842026

2026:GAU-AS:6016

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

¶5

Case No. : WP(C)/2249/2026

¶6

KUMUD CHANDRA DUTTA

¶7

S/O LATE RAGHAB CH. DUTTA, R/O WARD NO. 4, RANGIA, P.O. AND P.S.RANGIA, DISTRICT- KAMRUP(RURAL), ASSAM. PIN- 781335

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, EDUCATION (SECONDARY) DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 781019

¶10

2:THE DIRECTOR OF SECONDARY EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI- 781019

¶11

3:THE INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS KAMRUP DISTRICT CIRCLE AMINGAON GUWAHATI-781031

¶12

4:THE DIRECTOR OF PENSION ASSAM HOUSEFED COMPLEX DISPUR GUWAHATI- 781006 5:THE FINANCE AND ACCOUNTS OFFICER DIRECTORATE OF PENSION ASSAM HOUSEFED COMPLEX DISPUR GUWAHATI- 781006

¶13

Page No.# 2/3

¶14

6:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM

¶15

FINANCE (ESTABLISHMENT) DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI- 0

¶16

Advocate for the Petitioner : MRS P P BORAH, MR. P K DAS

¶17

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

¶18

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NELSON SAILO

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Date : 04.05.2026

¶21

Heard Mr. P. K. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. P. Das, learned Standing Counsel, Secondary Education Department for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3; Mr. P. Saikia, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent Nos. 4 and 5; and Ms. R. M. Baruah, learned Standing Counsel, Finance Department for the respondent No.6.

¶22

[2.] Having regard to the nature of grievance projected by the petitioner, the writ petition is taken up for disposal at this stage.

¶23

[3.] The petitioner retired from service on 30.06.2021 as Assistant Teacher from Rangia Higher Secondary School under Kamrup District Circle but despite retiring, he has not been paid his pension till date. According to the petitioner, the Directorate of Pension had raised an objection alleging that the pay of the petitioner as on 01.05.2001 should have been fixed as Rs.4,120/- but instead, he was given Rs.4,480/- and therefore, there is an excess drawal of pay by the petition w.e.f 01.05.2001 till the date of his retirement.

¶24

Page No.# 3/3

¶25

[4.] The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has no role in the computation and fixation of his pay and therefore, respondents cannot seek recovery of the same. He submits that the Principal of the School has calculated the excess payment given to the petitioner to be an amount of Rs.2,40,660.70 and the same has been communicated to the Inspector of Schools, Kamrup District Circle, Amingaon on 09.02.2026. It is therefore for this reason that the petitioner has been deprived of his pension till date. The learned counsel submits that the case of the petitioner is otherwise covered by the decision of the Apex Court rendered in State of Punjab Vs. Rafiq Masih reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 , more particularly, at paragraph No.18 of the said judgment. The learned counsel submits that paragraph No.18 of the said judgment has been abstracted in the writ petition against paragraph-9.

¶26

[5.] Upon perusal of the contents of the writ petition as well as the decision of the Apex Court in Rafiq Masih (Supra), it only appears that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the said decision. Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondent authorities to process and pay the petitioner his pension without further delay and at any rate within the outer limit of 2(two) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶27

[6.] With the above observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶28

JUDGE

¶29

Comparing Assistant

Kumud Chandra Dutta v. the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kumud Chandra Dutta v. the State of Assam and 5 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

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Janak Dewri Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Shabana Ishrat Karim Vs Narayan Konwar

Sugrim Prasad Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Halima Begum Vs the State of Assam and Othrs

Jaki Rejwana Laskar Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Narayan Thakuria Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.