Page No.# 1/8 GAHC010269472024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/233/2025 DAMAYANTI DAS W/O KESHAB CHANDRA DAS, R/O VILL- BARAPETA, P.S.-GOBARDHANA, P.O.-MAINAMATA, DIST- BAKSA, BTAD, ASSAM, PIN-781315 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 12 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, ASSAM, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6 2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM PENSION AND PUBLIC GRIEVANCES DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-6 3:THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM FINANCE DEPARTMENT ASSAM DISPUR GUWAHATI-6 4:THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI-19 5:THE DIRECTOR OF SECONDARY EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI-19 Page No.# 2/8 6:THE DIRECTOR OF PENSION ASSAM HOUSEFED COMPLEX DISPUR GUWAHATI-19 7:THE BODOLAND TERRITORIAL COUNCIL REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY EDUCATION BODOFANAGAR KOKRAJHAR PIN-783380 8:THE DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION BODOLAND TERRITORIAL COUNCIL BODOFANAGAR KOKRAJHAR DIST-KOKRAJHAR BTAD ASSAM PIN-783380 9:THE INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS BAKSA DISTRICT CIRCLE MUSHALPUR DIST- BAKSA BTAD ASSAM PIN-781372 10:THE DISTRICT ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER MUSHALPUR DIST- BAKSA BTAD ASSAM PIN-781372 11:THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS SALBARI DIST- BAKSA BTAD ASSAM PIN-781318 12:THE HEAD MASTER DAKSHIN BIJNI HIGH SCHOOL P.O.-MAINAMATA DIST- BAKSA Page No.# 3/8 BTAD ASSAM PIN-781315 13:THE TREASURY OFFICER MUSHALPUR TREASURY MUSHALPUR DIST- BAKSA BTAD ASSAM PIN-78137 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. K R PATGIRI, MS. D. DEVI,MS K BARMAN,MS CHITRALEKHA DAS Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, BTC,SC, FINANCE,SC, SEC. EDU.,SC, ELEM. EDU BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER Date :09.12.2025 Heard Mr. K.R. Patgiri, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. N. Phukan, learned standing counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 4 and 5; Mr. G. Pegu, learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate for the respondent No. 6; and Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Ms. S.S. Saikia, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 7 to 13. 2. In this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuing direction to the respondent authorities for finalization and releasing the monthly superannuation pension of the petitioner. 3. Mr. Patgiri, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as stipendiary teacher at 1566 No. Barapeta Girls L.P. School on 21.02.1985, and after completion of Junior Basic Training, she was granted Page No.# 4/8 regular scale of pay and posted at 1257 No. Dakshin Barapeta LP School. Mr. Patgiri also submits that thereafter, the said school was amalgamated with Dakshin Kharija Bijni High School and she retired on superannuation on 30.06.2023, and thereafter, she had submitted her pension proposal papers and the respondent No. 9 had sanctioned provisional superannuation pension for one year i.e up to June, 2024. Mr. Patgiri further submits that after receiving the provisional monthly pension, the petitioner was waiting for sanctioning of her regular pension, but till date, her regular pension has not been sanctioned by the respondent authorities and the provisional pension was stopped from July, 2024. Mr. Patgiri also submits that thereafter, the petitioner enquired about the matter and then she came to know that her pension proposal had returned due to wrong fixation of pay scale, and thereafter, she visited the office of the respondent No. 9 and the respondent No. 9 verbally asked her to correct the anomaly in consultation with the Headmaster of the concerned High School. Mr. Patgiri further submits that thereafter, the petitioner again approached the Headmaster of Dakshin Kharija Bijni High School, but he refused to take any steps without any letter issued from the higher authorities, and being aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present petition. 3.1. Mr. Patgiri also submits that the petitioner has filed one additional affidavit bringing on record one letter dated 28.07.2025 as Annexure-A and a copy of the representation dated 29.07.2025, filed by the petitioner as Annexure-B, and also a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and Ors. Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 and decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, dated 10.01.2023, in WP(C) No. 4092/2019, and on the basis of the same, Mr. Patgiri submits that the petitioner is no way responsible for wrong fixation of the salary and consequent Page No.# 5/8 overdrawal of the amount, if any, and after her retirement more than two years elapsed and being the petitioner a Class-III employee, the respondent authorities are not entitled to recover any amount in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih (White Washer) (supra), and therefore, he has contended to allow this petition by directing the respondent authorities to release the regular pension and pensionary benefits in a time bound manner. 4. It is to be noted here that the respondent authorities have not filed their affidavit-in-opposition. However, Ms. Bhuyan, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent Nos. 7 to 13 submits that this writ petition may be disposed of by directing the respondent authorities to settle the pension case of the petitioner in the light of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (White Washer) (supra) and also in view of the O.M. No. PPG- 1167/2023/13, dated 26.02.2024. 5. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, I have carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record, and also gone through the decisions relied upon by Mr. Patgiri, learned counsel for the petitioner and also the O.M. dated 26.02.2024. 6. The basic facts, herein this case, are not in dispute. The petitioner was appointed as stipendiary teacher and she joined at 1566 No. Barapeta Girls L.P. School on 21.02.1985, and after completion of Junior Basic Training, she was granted regular scale of pay w.e.f. 01.04.1987 and posted at 1257 No. Dakshin Barapeta LP School, and her service was confirmed w.e.f. 02.04.1990, vide order dated 11.07.2002. Thereafter, the school of the petitioner was amalgamated with Dakshin Kharija Bijni High School on 24.08.2017 and she Page No.# 6/8 retired on superannuation on 30.06.2023 from the said school. Thereafter, her pension proposal papers were submitted and the respondent No. 9 had sanctioned provisional superannuation pension for one year i.e up to June, 2024, vide order dated 01.07.2023. However, subsequently, the same was stopped from July, 2024 and she has not been receiving regular pension till date. 7. The additional affidavit filed by the petitioner, especially paragraph No. 4, indicates that due to erroneous fixation of pay in the year 1990, she has been asked to return a sum of Rs. 2,28,447/- by way of treasury challan or to furnish one consent letter for deduction of the said excess drawal from the final amount of DCRG. 8. It is the categorical contention of Mr. Patgiri, learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was serving as Assistant Teacher and retired as Assistant Teacher, and she had no role in fixation of her pay and moreover, she has already retired from service on superannuation on 30.06.2023, and till date, two years had already elapsed, and as such, according to Mr. Patgiri, the respondent authorities are not entitled to recover the said amount from the petitioner. 9. There appears to be substance in the submission of Mr. Patgiri, learned counsel for the petitioner and his submission is further strengthened by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (White Washer) (supra), wherein, in paragraph No. 18, it has been 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, Page No.# 7/8 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). (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.” 10. It is also to be noted here that after the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (White Washer) (supra), the State respondents have issued one O.M. dated 26.02.2024, incorporating the direction issued in paragraph No. 18 of the aforesaid decision. 11. It is not in dispute that the petitioner belongs to Class-III service and she has already retired from service, and the recovery of amount relates to the year 1990, and as such, her case comes under the purview of Clause Nos. (i), (ii) and (iii) of paragraph No. 18 of the case of Rafiq Masih (White Washer) Page No.# 8/8 (supra). Further, her case would also come under Clause No. (v), as after so many years, if the aforesaid amount is recovered from the petitioner, then it would be iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary to a great extent and it would outweigh the equitable balance of the right of the respondent authorities to recover the same. 12. Under the given factual and legal matrix, and also taking note of the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, this Court is inclined to dispose of this petition. Accordingly, by a mandamus of this Court, the respondents Nos. 5, 6, 8, 9 and 10, more particularly the respondent No. 6 is directed to settle the case of the petitioner and also to release other pensionary benefits, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 13. In the event of failing to release the pensionary benefits and regular pension within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, the arrear pension amount and the pensionary benefits, will carry interest @ 9% per annum. 14. The petitioner shall obtain a certified copy of this order and place the same before the aforesaid respondents within a period of one week from today. 15. In terms of above, this writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant