Page No.# 1/8 GAHC010203752023 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/5346/2023 PUJYA KUMAR GOGOI S/O LATE JAGNESWAR GOGOI, R/O VILL- SARADA BORUAH PATH, NEAR BRAHMAPUTRA VALLEY ACADEMY, P.O.-KHELMATI, DIST- LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM, PIN-787031 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, PUBLIC WORK DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6 2:THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM PENSION AND PUBLIC GRIEVANCE DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-6 3:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM FINANCE DEPTT. DISPUR GUWAHATI-06 4:THE CHIEF ENGINEER (ROAD) PUBLIC WORK DEPARTMENT ASSAM CHANDMARI GUWAHATI-03 5:THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A AND E) MAIDAMGAON BELTOLA GUWAHATI-29 Page No.# 2/8 6:TEH EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PWD JONAI TERRITORIAL ROAD DIVISION SILAPATHER DIST-DHEMAJI ASSAM PIN-785601 7:THE TREASURY OFFICER LAKHIMPUR TREASURY DIST-LAKHIMPUR ASSAM PIN-78700 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. K R PATGIRI, MR. B GOGOI,MS. U HAZARIKA Advocate for the Respondent : SC, PWD, SC, FINANCE,SC, AG,GA, ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER Date : 23.03.2026 Heard Mr. K. R. Patgiri, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Gogoi, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for all the respondents. 2. The petitioner in the present proceeding has assailed the recovery of an amount of Rs.5,43,668 (Rupees Five Lakhs Forty Three Thousand Six Hundred Sixty Eight) from his Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity benefits towards the excess payment and allowances received by him during his service tenure. 3. The petitioner who was initially recruited as a Junior Engineer in the Public Works Department, Government of Assam, in the year 1983, was, thereafter, Page No.# 3/8 promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer. The petitioner retired from his services w.e.f. 30.09.2021, on attaining his age of superannuation. After superannuation of the petitioner, a proposal was prepared for authorizing to the petitioner his pension and pensionary benefits and the same was forwarded to the Office of the Accountant General (A&E), Assam. The Office of the Accountant General (A&E), Assam, upon processing the said pension proposal received in respect of the petitioner, found that the pay of the petitioner was, as on 01-02-1995, fixed at a higher stage at Rs.2,335 (Rupees Two Thousand Three Hundred Thirty Five), whereas he was entitled to such fixation at the stage of Rs.2,275 (Rupees Two Thousand Two Hundred Seventy Five). The said fixation having been followed for the further fixation effected during the service tenure of the petitioner, the Office of the Accountant General (A&E), Assam, vide communication dated 12-05-2020, required the Executive Engineer, PWD, Jonai Territorial Road Division, to rectify the said anomaly, as occasioning in the service book of the petitioner and to re-submit the proposal after rectification. It was further stipulated that the pay and allowances drawn in excess by the petitioner be computed and recovered from him. Thereafter, the respondent authorities in the PWD Department examined the matter and having found that there was an error with regard to the fixation of the pay of the petitioner w.e.f. 01-02-1995, proceeded to re-fix his pay at the correct stage as of 01-02-1995. Such re-fixation at the lower Page No.# 4/8 stage than the stage that the pay of the petitioner was fixed as of 01-02-1995, had also required a re-fixation in respect of the further fixations of pay, occasioning in respect of the petitioner during his service career. On the re-fixation of pay being made, the respondents had prepared an over-drawal statement and in terms thereof, it was found that an amount of Rs.5,43,668 (Rupees Five Lakhs Forty Three Thousand Six Hundred Sixty Eight) was drawn in excess by the petitioner towards his pay and allowances during his service tenure w.e.f. 01-02-1995. The said amount was now required to be recovered from the Debt-cum-Retirement Gratuity benefit as would be authorized to the petitioner. On the rectified proposal being placed before the Office of the Accountant General, (A&E), Assam, the same was further processed and vide PPO No.923311302979 dated 18-05-2023, the petitioner was authorized a monthly pension of Rs.42,270 (Rupees Forty Two Thousand Two Hundred Seventy). Along with the said PPO dated 18-05-2023, a GPO bearing no.31230297923 dated 18-05-2023, was issued authorizing a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs), to the petitioner as his DCRG benefit. In the said GPO dated 18-05-2023, it was further stipulated that from the DCRG amount authorized to the petitioner, an amount of Rs. 5,43,668 (Rupees Five Lakhs Forty Three Thousand Six Hundred Sixty Eight), is to be recovered towards the excess pay and allowances drawn by the petitioner after 01-02- 1995. Accordingly, the Treasury Officer while releasing to the petitioner his Page No.# 5/8 DCRG benefits, had recovered an amount of Rs. 5,43,668/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Forty Three Thousand Six Hundred Sixty Eight) therefrom and only the balance, thereof, was released to the petitioner. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has instituted the present petition. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 5. The facts as noticed, hereinabove, are not in dispute. The petitioner in the present petition has not disputed that there was an error occasioning in fixation of his pay as of 01-02-1995 and on account of the said error, his pay came to be fixed at a higher stage, than that he was actually eligible to receive. 6. The petitioner has, however, projected that the fixation of pay as effected in his case as of 01-02-1995 was not done by him and the same was so done by the Departmental authorities without any reference to him. The petitioner has also projected that he had not made any misrepresentation in the matter which may have led to the fixation of his pay as of 01-02-1995 at that higher stage than that he was actually eligible to receive. 7. The PWD authorities have also not projected that the error occasioning in fixation of pay of the petitioner as of 01-02-1995, at a higher stage than that he was entitled to receive was on account of any misrepresentation made Page No.# 6/8 by the petitioner in the matter and/or that the petitioner was in any responsible for the fixation of his pay at a higher stage as of 01-02-1995. 8. This Court finds that when the initial pension proposal was processed after the superannuation of the petitioner, by the authorities in the Public Works Department, the said anomaly existing with regard to the fixation of the pay of the petitioner as of 01-02-1995, had not come to the notice of the authorities. It was only on the processing of the pension proposal by the Office of the Accountant General (A&E), Assam, that the said anomaly had come to notice and accordingly the pension proposal in respect of the petitioner was remitted back to the respondent no.6, for rectification. On the rectification exercise being carried out and the pay of the petitioner fixed at the correct stage as of 01-02-1995, it was found that the petitioner had drawn excess pay and allowances after 01-02-1995, and accordingly the excess amount drawn by the petitioner was computed and it was found that the petitioner after 01-02-1995 had drawn an amount of Rs.5,43,668 (Rupees Five Lakhs Forty Three Thousand Six Hundred Sixty Eight). The excess amount of pay and allowances drawn by the petitioner was now directed to be recovered from the DCRG benefits that would now be authorized to the petitioner. 9. Accordingly, the rectified proposal on being received by the Office of the Accountant General (A&E), Assam, the Office of the Accountant General (A&E), Assam, vide issuing the GPO dated 18-05-2023, authorizing an amount Page No.# 7/8 of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs) as his DCRG benefits, a recovery of Rs.5,43,668/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Forty Three Thousand Six Hundred Sixty Eight) was directed to be effected therefrom. The said recovery was effected by the jurisdictional Treasury Officer, by releasing to the petitioner his DCRG benefits. 10. As noticed, hereinabove, it is not projected by the respondents that the petitioner was in any way responsible for the wrong fixation of his pay and allowances as of 01-02-1995, and accordingly the recovery as effected of the excess amount of salaries drawn by the petitioner would not be mandated. Support in this connection is drawn from the following decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and Ors. Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) (2015) 4 SCC 334. 11. Applying the said decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court to the facts of the present case, this Court is of the considered view that the recovery effected from the petitioner's DCRG benefits for an amount of Rs.5,43,668 (Rupees Five Lakhs Forty Three Thousand Six Hundred Sixty Eight) would not be permissible and the said amount would be required to be reauthorized to the petitioner. 12. In view of the above discussion, the respondent authorities are directed to re-authorize to the petitioner an amount of Rs.5,43,668 (Rupees Five Lakhs Forty Three Thousand Six Hundred Sixty Eight) recovered from his DCRG benefits as authorized to him vide the GPO dated 18-05-2023. The said reauthorization of the said amount be made to the petitioner within a period Page No.# 8/8 of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order. 13. With the above observations and directions, the present petition stands dismissed. However there would be no order as to costs. JUDGE Comparing Assistant