Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010122982025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/3306/2025 MD. AMANULLAH MANDAL SON OF LT. MD AHMED ALI MONDAL, VILLAGE- WARD NO. 10, NARABARI ROAD, P.O. AND P.S. KOKRAJHAR, DIST.- KOKRAJHAR, B.T.C., PIN- 783370, ASSAM VERSUS THE ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED AND 4 ORS REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER (D), ASSAM, APDCL, (LAR) BIJULI BHAWAN, PALTANBAZAAR, GHY-01. 2:THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (F AND A) PENSION AEGCL (LAR) BIJULI BHAWAN PALTAN BAZAAR GHY-01. 3:THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER BONGAIGAON ELECTRICAL DIVISION APDCL (LAR) DIST.- BONGAIGAON ASSAM. 4:THE DEPUTY MANAGER BIJNI ELECTRICAL SUB-DIVISION DIST.- CHIRANG ASSAM 5:THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER KOKRAJHAR ELECTRICAL DIVISION Page No.# 2/4 APDCL (LAR) DIST.- KOKRAJHAR ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR P K DAS, MS D ANGANA Advocate for the Respondent : SC, APDCL, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER Date : 05.06.2026 Heard Mr. S. S. Talukdar, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K. P. Pathak, the learned Standing Counsel for APDCL. 2. By this application filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the disbursement of an amount of Rs. 1,97,832/- towards gratuity, which was deducted by the concerned officials of the Assam Electricity Grid Corporation Ltd. on the ground that the said amount was overdrawn by the petitioner. 3. The case of the petitioner is that, he was working as a Bill Clerk in the Building Division of the BTP, ASEB, Kokrajhar and he had continued the said capacity till the date of his retirement. i.e. on 15.03.2013. After his retirement, the authorities while making payment with regard to the gratuity had deducted an amount of Rs. 1,97,832/- from the said amount on the ground that it was overdrawn by the petitioner vide order dated 17.03.2015. Before the said order, there was another Office Order dated 19.1.2015, by which it was ordered by the authorities concerned that the gratuity amount of the petitioner being Rs. 4,94,670/- would be paid to him but subject to adjustment of the outstanding liabilities of Rs. 1,97,832/- being overdraw of pay and allowances. Against the Page No.# 3/4 said deduction the petitioner has submitted a representation for recovery of the gratuity amount during April, 2025, which however, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was no reply to the said representation. 4. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this court with the aforesaid prayers. In the instant proceedings, the respondents have file their affidavit-in-opposition, stating inter alia that there was enormous delay in making the representation by the petitioner for recovery of his gratuity amount and further that the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, passed in “State of Punjab vs. Rafiq Masih”, reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334, by which the Hon’ble Supreme Court had held that the deduction cannot be made from salaries or retirement benefits, if for the same there is no fault of the employee and the same principle was made applicable, especially to Grade-III and Grade-IV employees, was passed after the petitioner retired. 5. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that, in the instant case the petitioner has retired much before the aforesaid case, although the deduction was made after the said case was delivered by the Supreme Court. 6. In the case of “State of Punjab vs. Rafiq Masih”(supra), it is held by the Supreme Court that it is not possible to postulate all situations of hardships, which would govern employees on the issue of recovery where payments have mistakenly been made by the employer in excess of their entitlement. As such, since it was not possible to see all the situations, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had categorically held that for no fault of the employee, if any, recovery is made, which was stated to be unfair and bad, the same should be refunded to the employee concerned. 7. It be stated here that even before the decision of Rafiq Masih (supra), Page No.# 4/4 there are decisions by the Apex Court, one of such decision was “Shyam Babu Verma Vs. Union of India” reported in (1994) 2 SCC 521; wherein, in the facts of the said case that the employee was paid enhanced pay scale from an earlier date then on the completion of 10 years of service, which was later sought to be recovered from the petitioner in that case and in the said fact, it was stated by the Supreme court that no steps should be taken to recover or to adjust any excess amount paid to the petitioner due to no fault of the petitioners, as the petitioners were no way responsible for the same. 8. In view of the settled position, as stated above, it is therefore directed that the deduction of the amount of Rs. 1,97,832/- done by the authorities in the Assam Power Distribution Company Ltd. is held to be incorrect and the said amount should be repaid to the petitioner. 9. It is further directed that the authorities should replay the said amount within a period 1 (one) month from the date of receipt of this order. 10. Further, the petitioner is directed to file a representation before the authorities concerned along with the copy of this order and place his claim before the authorities at the earliest. 11. The writ petition is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant