Page No.# 1/8 GAHC020005632025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH Case No. : WP(C)/174/2025 SMTI. JOYCE AND 5 ORS PRIMARY TEACHER, GMS SATAKHA OLD TOWN, ZUNHEBOTO-798620 2: SHRI AKASHE SEMA PRIMARY TEACHER GPS GHUKIYE VILLAGE ZUNHEBOTO-798620 3: SHRI PITO SEMA PRIMARY TEACHER GMS NUNUMI VILLAGE ZUNHEBOTO-798620 4: SHRI KAKIHE PRIMARY TEACHER GMS SHOIPU ZUNHEBOTO-798620 5: SHRI AKEVI SEMA PRIMARY TEACHER GMS SATAKHA OLD ZUNHEBOTO-798620 6: SHRI KHETOI JIMO PRIMARY TEACHER GMS TUKUNASAMI ZUNHEBOTO-79862 VERSUS STATE OF NAGALAND AND 4 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF NAGALAND Page No.# 2/8 2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY DEPT. OF SCHOOL EDUCATION NAGALAND KOHIMA 3:THE PRINCIPAL DIRECTOR DEPT. OF SCHOOL EDUCATION NAGALAND KOHIMA 4:THE DIRECTOR DEPT. OF SCHOOL EDUCATION NAGALAND KOHIMA 5:THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL NAGALAND KOHIM Advocate for the Petitioner : Z. ZHIMOMI, ZUCHAMO Y KIKON,LOVIKATO SWU,KUPULI SWU,NEWTON ZHIMOMI Advocate for the Respondent : GOVT ADV NL, BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER 27.01.2026 Heard Ms. Z. Zhimomi, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. Seponglemla Chung, learned Government Advocate for the State respondents. 2. Extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, being sought to be invoked by six petitioners, who have been working as Primary Teachers, under Satakha Sub- Division in Zunheboto district, in this petition, challenging the excess salary drawal statements for an amount of Rs. 9,06,238/-, which were issued to them on 22.08.2025, proposing to deduct the same from their salaries and also prayed for directing the respondent authorities not to make recovery of any excess amount from their monthly salaries Page No.# 3/8 and also from the benefit granted to them under Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP hereinafter) Scheme and also to direct the respondent authorities to pay them their MACP entitlement. Background facts:- 3. The background facts, leading to filing of this present petition, are briefly stated as under:- “The petitioners were appointed as Primary Teachers, during the year 2005 – 2007, under Satakha Sub-Division in Zunheboto district and subsequently, on the recommendation made by the Interview Board, vide order dated 01.08.2012, they were regularized w.e.f. 23.07.2012. Since then, they have been rendering their services sincerely without any blemish. But, in the first week of July, 2025, they have orally been informed by the Sub-Divisional Education Officer, Satakha(SDEO hereinafter) that it has been detected that there are excess payment of salaries to them, due to wrong fixation of pay, since 2013, till date and the same are to be recovered from their monthly salaries and also from the benefit granted to them under MACP scheme granted to them. Then, on receipt of the said information, on 11.07.2025, the petitioners had submitted a representation, before the SDEO to provide them the recovery statements. Then, the Director of School Education, Nagaland, Kohima, the respondent No. 4, had informed the petitioners to come and collect the recovery statements. Then, on 22.08.2025, the petitioner No. 6, on behalf of all, had collected the same and on perusal of the same, they came to know that the amount of recovery to be made from the petitioners, w.e.f. 01.12.2013 – Page No.# 4/8 30.06.2025, are Rs. 1,64,068/- from the petitioner No. 1; Rs. 1,61,228/- from the petitioner No. 2; Rs. 1,62,078/- from the petitioner No. 3; Rs. 1,62,150/- from the petitioner No. 4; Rs. 1,02,417/- from the petitioner No. 5; and Rs. 1,54,297/- from the petitioner No. 6.” Submissions:- 4. Ms. Zhimomi, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the petitioners have been serving as Primary Teachers and they fall under Class – III category of the Government Servants and that it is well settled law that recovery from a Government Servant, falling under Class – III is not permissible. She also submits that the alleged excess payment was made to the petitioners without misrepresentation or fraud on their part. Further she submits that the excess payment is made for five years, or when the recovery order is issued after a delay of over one month from the detection of the excess payment, then also recovery is not permissible. Ms. Zhimomi further submits that in the case of the present petitioners, the alleged excess payment was made since the year 2013, which spread over more than ten years and under such circumstances also, recovery of the alleged excess payment is not permissible. Therefore, she has contended to allow this petition, by quashing the impugned recovery statements. 4.1. In support of her submission, Ms. Zhimomi has referred to a Notification, issued by the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Nagaland, dated 29.01.2016, which is annexed with the petition as Annexure – E, at page No. 30 and also referred to a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of State of Punjab and Others vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334. Page No.# 5/8 5. On the other hand, Ms. Seponglemla Chung, learned Government Advocate for the State respondents, submits that in view of the Notification dated 29.01.2016, the present writ petition may be disposed of. Consideration of this Court:- 6. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, I have carefully gone through the petition as well as the documents placed on record and also perused the impugned recovery statements, along with the Notification, dated 29.01.2016 and also the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra). 7. The basic facts here in this case are not in dispute. The petitioners were appointed as Primary Teachers, during the year 2005 – 2007, under Satakha Sub-Division in Zunheboto district and their services were regularized, vide order dated 01.08.2012, w.e.f. 23.07.2012. And while they were serving in that capacity, in the first week of July, 2025, they got an intimation about the excess drawal of salary from 01.12.2013 – 30.06.2025 and thereafter, they have collected their recovery statements, which are annexed with the petition as Annexure – D series and perusal of the same indicates that a total sum of Rs. 9,06,238/- is recoverable from the monthly salaries of the petitioners due to excess drawal. 8. It is the categorical contention of the petitioners that the said excess drawal cannot be attributed to the petitioners for misrepresentation or fraud on their part and such contention is not controverted by the State respondents. It is also not controverted by the State respondents that the petitioners belong to Class – III category of the Government servants. Page No.# 6/8 9. Further, a perusal of the Notification, dated 29.01.2016, it appears that the said Notification was issued by the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Nagaland, vide Memo No. DSE/LEGAL/10-21/15 and the same was issued in compliance with the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra). 9.1. In the said Notification, the Government of Nagaland has notified that henceforth no recoveries shall be made in respect of the following:- (i) from the employees of Class III and IV; (ii) from the retired employees, or the employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery; and (iii) from the employees to whom excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery is issued. 10. It is to be noted here that in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph No. 18 held as under:- “18. 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. Be that as it may, based on the decisions referred to hereinabove, we may, as a ready reference, summarise the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law: (i) Recovery from the employees belonging to Class III and Class IV service (or Group C and Group D service). Page No.# 7/8 (ii) Recovery from the retired employees, or the employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery. (iii) Recovery from the employees, when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery is issued. (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. (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 far outweigh the equitable balance of the employer's right to recover. 11. It is also settled in the case of Syed Abdul Qadir vs. State of Bihar, reported in (2009) 3 SCC 475, that if the payment had been made for a long duration of time, it would be iniquitous to make any recovery. It has also been held in the said case that the excess amount that has been paid to the employees was not because of any misrepresentation or fraud on their part and they had no knowledge that the amount, which was being paid to them, was more than what they were entitled to and therefore, no recovery should be made. 12. Again, in the case Shayam Babu Verma vs. Union of India, reported in (1994) 2 SCC 521, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that if the excess payment is made due to no fault of the employees, then it shall only be just and proper not to recover any excess amount, Page No.# 8/8 which has already been paid to them. 13. In the present case, the petitioners are serving as Primary Teachers and indisputably, they belong to Class – III category and there was neither misrepresentation on their part nor they had committed any fraud in excess drawal, which spread over for more than five years. 13.1. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it would be iniquitous to the petitioners, if the alleged excess drawal amount is recovered from them in view of the precedents discussed herein above and the Notification dated 29.01.2016. Conclusion:- 14. In view of the aforesaid legal proposition and also in view of the submissions, so advanced by learned counsel for both the parties, this Court finds sufficient merit in this petition and accordingly, the same stands allowed. The impugned statements of recovery, being annexed with the petition as Annexure – D series, failed to withstand the legal scrutiny and the contemplated recovery of the excess drawal is contrary to the Notification dated 29.01.2016, especially Clause – I & II and the legal proposition laid down in the cases discussed herein above and therefore, the same stand set aside and quashed. 15. In terms of above, this writ petition stands disposed of, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Sd/- JUDGE Comparing Assistant