Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010215842024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/5494/2024 KAKRUNG RONGPIPI D/O- LT. SARTHE RONGPI, W/O- LT. BURA TERON, PERMANENT RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- DOK RONGPI, P.O.- SARIHAJAN, P.S.- BOKAJAN, DISTRICT- KARBI ANGLONG, ASSAM, PIN - 782480. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 10 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI, PIN NO.- 781006. 2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY PENSION AND PUBLIC GRIEVANCE DISPUR GUWAHATI ASSAM PIN NO. -781006. 3:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY GOVT. OF ASSAM FINANCE DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI ASSAM PIN NO.- 781006. 4:THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL ( A AND G) Page No.# 2/6 MAIDAMGAON BELTOLA GUWAHATI DISTRICT- KAMRUP(M) ASSAM PIN- 781029. 5:THE CHIEF ENGINEER PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT (PHE) HENGRABARI GUWAHATI DISTRICT- KAMRUP(M) ASSAM PIN NO.- 781007. 6:THE ADDL. CHIEF ENGINEER PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT (PHE) DIPHU KARBI ANGLONG ASSAM PIN NO.- 782460. 7:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT (PHE) DIPHU KARBI ANGLONG ASSAM PIN NO.- 782460. 8:THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT (PHE) CHOWKIHOLA SUB-DIVISION AT SARIHAJAN DISTRICT- KARBI ANGLONG ASSAM PIN NO.- 782480. 9:THE TREASURY OFFICER AT DIPHU DISTRICT- KARBI ANGLONG ASSAM PIN NO. -782460. Page No.# 3/6 10:THE CHIEF MANAGER STATE BANK OF INDIA DIPHU BRANCH AT DIPHU KARBI ANGLONG ASSAM PIN NO.- 782460. 11:THE BRANCH MANAGER STATE BANK OF INDIA BOKAJAN BRANCH AT BOJAJAN KARBI ANGLONG ASSAM PIN NO.- 782480 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N K MURRY, P HAJONG,MS S.DAS,MS P TOKBIPI Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, MR A CHALIHA,MR R S RONGHANG,MR A CHAKRABORTY,MR B SARMA,MR. S Ali (R-10,11),MR K DAS (R-10,11),SC, P H E,SC, K A A C,SC, AG,SC, FINANCE DEPTT. BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER Date : 27.03.2026 Heard Mr. N.K. Murry, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. Sarma, learned counsel for Accountant General and Mr. K. Das learned counsel for the respondent No. 10 and 11. 2. The Petitioner has filed this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, mainly with three prayers; One, the petitioner who was working as Grade-IV employee in the Office of Assistant Executive Engineer, PHE Department, Chowki-Holla Sub-Division in Karbi Anglong District, Assam, had retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation with effect from 30.11.2022. However the petitioner submits that although the authorities had sanctioned the payment for pension, by issuing the PPO, the bank authorities had not released Page No.# 4/6 the amount to the petitioner, which has caused serious prejudice to her. Second, the petitioner also submits that her pension has not been calculated as per the rules and she has also assailed the action of the respondent authorities in withdrawing the alleged excess withdrawal of money from her pension. As far as the first grievance is concerned, that the bank authorities have not released the pensionary amount to the petitioner, it is stated by the learned counsel appearing for the bank authorities, that the officials in the bank, after verification of the documents of the petitioner, had sent it for revalidation of the PPO to the office of the Treasury Office with a copy to the petitioner. However, the Treasury Office is yet to revalidate the same and who in turn has to get the approval from the Accountant General Office. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the Bank Authorities submits that they have not received the said revalidated PPO from the Treasury Office or from the Applicant, who can also send the same. So the fact remains that the Bank Authorities are not intentionally withholding the payment of pension to the petitioner, as alleged by the petitioner. 4. Since it is not revalidated the treasury office is directed to do the needful and inform the petitioners. 5. The second grievance raised by the petitioner that calculation of the pensionary amount is not correctly done. This court holds the following. The petitioner submitted that as per rules, the pension amount should be 50% of the last drawn salary. And he submits that since the last drawn salary is Rs. 42,505/-. The pension amount would come to more than Rs. 20,000/-. He has placed the office memorandum dated 12th of July, 2017. Which provides that full superannuation pension shall be determined at the rate of 50% of last month's emolument drawn or 50% of last 10 months average emoluments whichever is beneficial to the employee. As such he submits that the amount of pension calculated by the authorities i.e., Rs. 15,770/-, which is not 50% of the last drawn salary is wrongly calculated. And he claims that the pension should be more than what is provided for. To substantiate his argument the petitioner has pleased various judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as the Hon’ble High Court. 6. Mr. B. Sarma, learned counsel for the Accountant General submits that the law relating to payment of salary is that it should be paid at a rate of 50% of the basic pay of the employee. So, as such the basic pay being Rs. 31,540/-, 50% of the same would be Rs.15,770/- as allowed by the Office of the Accountant General. Accordingly he submits there is no miscalculation of the pensionary amount allowed to the petitioner. There is yet another grievance raised by the Page No.# 5/6 petitioner and that is the department has made recovery of an excess amount. 7. It is stated by the learned counsel appearing for the Accountant General that when the recovery is to be done, it is asked for by the parent department and on the basis of the said instruction, the accounts officer deducts the same and informs it to the treasury. 8. Mr. B. Sharma, learned counsel for the Accountant General that the recovery of the overpayment was to the tune of Rs. 46,830/- from the DCRG, on the strength of form 19 of the pension paper. Wherein the DDO, (Drawing and Disbursing Officer) has specifically mentioned that overpayment of pay and allowance in respect of the petitioner is Rs. 46,830 and the same needs to be recovered from DCRG. And accordingly the treasury officer was instructed to recover the amount from the DCRG. 9. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that some Rs.6,87,807/- is recovered is again not founded on facts. 10. It is noticed in the communication dated 20.04.2023. that the total provisional DCRG required to be paid to the petitioner is calculated as Rs.7,07,282/- out of which the provisional DCRG paid to the petitioner was Rs.6,40,994/-, plus the recovery made for overpayment is Rs.46,813/- and by adding these two, the total amount comes to Rs.6,87,807/- and which has to be deducted from the DCRG amount that is Rs.7,07,282/- and the remaining amount has to be paid to the petitioner as gratuity. 11. As such it is seen that the calculation done by the assistant account officer is not incorrect in the facts of the case. In view of the same, as far as the grievance of the petitioner that the pension has not been properly fixed and the recovery of the excess drawl is subject to following verification. 12. However, as far as the issue of non-payment of pensionary amount by the bank is concerned, further the same can be recovered both by petitioner is left to the authority to decide as per judgment and it is stated that treasury would not sit over the matter and would decide to revalidate or not and send for approval to the Accountant General Office, who would complete the exercise. The competent authority may pass speaking order if decision is taken not to pay. 13. It is further submitted that the Public Health Engineer (PHE) Department as well as the Karbi Anglong Autonomous Council to verify the as to whether the pensionary benefit would be calculated at 50% of the basic pay or the last drawn salary and make the necessary rectification Page No.# 6/6 of the same. 14. Further the Account Department is also directed to re-verify the deduction made to his DCRG of the petitioner. 15. With the above direction, the matter is disposed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant