Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010046662025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/1379/2025 FORCE NO. 831241604 SRI DEBA JYOTI BORA S/O- LATE AKAN CHANDRA BORA, PERMANENT RESIDENT OF VILLAGE PHULANIATI, P.O. CHAKALAGHAT, NAGAON, PIN- 782142, PRESENTLY SERVING AS SUB-INSPECTOR/GD AND POSTED AT GROUP CENTRE, CRPF 9TH MILE, AMERIGOG, KHANAPARA, GUWAHATI-781023. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND 3 ORS THROUGH SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110001. 2:DIRECTOR GENERAL CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE BLOCK- 1 C.G.O. COMPLEX LODHI ROAD NEW DELHI-110003. 3:DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL (DIG) GROUP CENTRE CRPF 9TH MILE AMERIGOG KHANAPARA GUWAHATI-781023. 4:PAY AND ACCOUNTS OFFICER (PAO) CRPF MHA DIRECTOR OF ACCOUNTS Page No.# 2/5 PLOT NO 14 PSP2 SECTOR- 23 ROHINI BEGUMPUR NEW DELHI-110085 Advocate for the Petitioner : MRS. R BORAH, MR. D BORAH Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., MR. B DEKA (R-1,2,3,4) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR ORDER 10.02.2026 Heard Mr. D. Borah, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Deka, learned CGC appearing for the respondent nos. 1, 2, 3 & 4. 2. The issue in this writ petition is regarding the attempt of the respondent authorities to make recoveries of excess payment made on the wrong fixation of benefits of the MACP/ACP Scheme be granted to the petitioner during his service. The petitioner had joined his services in the Central Reserve Police Force on 31.12.1983 and he was given the benefits of 3rd ACP w.e.f 31.12.2013. 3. On 11.01.2025, an order was passed by the respondent authorities 11 years after the grant of the 3rd ACP to the petitioner that it had been wrongly fixed and therefore a recovery of Rs.6,79,736/- from the pay and pension of the petitioner was required to be made. In the writ petition, it is alleged that the said order of recovery was passed without any prior notice to the petitioner. The Page No.# 3/5 petitioner thereafter retired on 31.03.2025, by which time, no recovery had been made from the pay and allowances or other deposits of the petitioner. 4. The writ petitioner approached this Court being aggrieved by the recovery and installment from his last month’s pay and also with a prayer before this Court that further recoveries attempted to be made by the respondents be interfered with. This Court while issuing notice on 10.03.2025 had provided that no recovery shall be made from the pay and pension of the petitioner without leave of the Court. No leave has been sought for from this Court by the respondents authorities till today. 5. Mr. D. Borah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the case is squarely covered by the judgment and order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab Vs Rafiq Masih reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 (White Washer) where he refers to paragraph 12. 6. In view of the contents made in the paragraph 12 of the aforesaid judgment, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the recovery of any amount from the retired employees or employees who are due to retire within 1 year of the order of the recovery has been forbidden by the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court. 7. Mr. Deka, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has placed reliance on the judgment and order of the Apex Court passed in Chandi Prasad Uniyal & Ors Vs State of Uttarakhand & Ors. reported in 2012 Supreme (SC) 541 to emphasis upon this Court that recovery of excess payment of public money can always be made. Page No.# 4/5 8. The Hon’ble Apex Court had held that the appellants in the case of Chandi Prasad Uniyal (supra) did not fall within any of the exceptional categories and therefore the attempted recovery was not interfered with. 9. The rival submissions have been duly considered and the materials placed before this Court have been duly examined. 10. In the case of Rafiq Masih (supra), Hon’ble Apex Court had laid down the law that it would be impermissible to make recoveries from retired employees or employees who are due to retire within 1 year of the order or recovery. In the present case the order of recovery has been passed within a year of the petitioner expecting his retirement and the recovery has been sought to be made from their pension and pensionery benefits. 11. This Court is of the opinion that the case is squarely covered by the conditions laid down in paragraph 12 (ii) of Rafiq Masih (supra). It has also covered the paragraph 12 (iii) of the aforesaid case, where recovery from employees, when the excess payment had been made for a period in excess of 5 years before the order of recovery is issued was also held to be illegal. 12. In the aforesaid view of the matter, this writ petition is allowed. 13. The attempt of the respondent authorities to make recoveries from the pension and other pensionery benefits of the petitioner is interfered with. Respondents are restrained from making any such recovery. The recovery already made from the petitioner from 1 month’s pension be forthwith reimbursed to the petitioner along with the pension of the next month. Page No.# 5/5 14. Writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. 15. No costs. JUDGE Comparing Assistant