Page No.# 1/9 GAHC010064372021 2025:GAU-AS:2610 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2425/2021 RUNU MAHANTA W/O- SRI PRABHAT CH. MAHANTA, R/O- VILL- MILANPUR, WARD NO.6, P.O. ND P.S. DERGAON, DIST- GOLAGHAT, ASSAM,PIN- 785614 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS. REP. BY THE COMM. AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, EDUCATION (SECONDARY) DEPTT., DISPUR, GHY-06 2:THE DIRECTOR OF SECONDARY EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GHY-19 3:THE DIRECTOR OF PENSION ASSAM HOUSEFED COMPLEX LAST GATE DISPUR GHY-06 4:THE INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS GOLAGHAT DISTRICT CIRCLE GOLAGHAT DIST.- GOLAGHAT ASSAM PIN- 785621 5:THE FINANCE AND ACCOUNTS OFFICER DIRECTOR OF PENSION HOUSEFED COMPLEX DISPUR GHY-06 Page No.# 2/9 6:THE PRINCIPAL INDRANEE DEVI HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL P.O. DERGAON PIN- 785614 DIST.- GOLAGHAT ASSAM 7:THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A AND E) ASSAM MAIDAMGAON P.O. BELTOLA P.S. BASISTHA GHY-29 DIST.- KAMRUP (M) ASSAM 8:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM DISPUR GUWAHATI-06 ASSAM. 9:THE TREASURY OFFICER DERGAON P.O- DERGAON DIST- GOLAGHAT-785614 ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P MAHANTA, MR. C M MAHANTA Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, MR. L C DEY,SC, AG,SC, FINANCE DEPTT.,SC, SEC. EDU. BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER 11.03.2025 Heard Mr. P. Mahanta, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. U. Page No.# 3/9 Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 4; Mr. B. Deuri, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 & 5; Mr. L.C. Dey, learned counsel for the respondent No. 6; and Mr. S. Sarmah, learned counsel for the respondent No. 7. 2. In this application, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuing direction to the respondent authorities for setting aside and quashing the Drawal Certificate No. PRI/INDRA/DRAWAL/CER/2019/1, dated 26.02.2019, whereby she was allowed to draw a sum of Rs. 4,76,039/- by deducting Rs. 2,13,041/- from the DCRG amount of Rs. 7,00,000/- sanctioned to her by the Directorate of Pension, Assam and also to issue direction to the respondent authorities for releasing the sum of Rs. 2,13,041/- which was illegally deducted showing excess drawal of pay. 3. Mr. Mahanta, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had retired from service as Principal In-Charge from Indranee Devi Higher Secondary School on 31.03.2016. Thereafter, the respondent No. 4 submitted the pension proposal of her to the respondent No. 3, by showing some excess drawal of Rs. 2,13,041/- by her for the period of 02.06.1992 to 31.03.2016, on the basis of some wrong calculation. Then, on receipt of the said proposal, the respondent No. 2 while sanctioning the provisional pension, also sanctioned Rs. 4,76,039/- against the Head of DCRG after deducting Rs. 2,13,041/- as excess drawal from the total sanctioned amount of Rs. 6,94,080/-. Mr. Mahanta further submits that the petitioner had submitted one representation to the respondent No. 4, Inspector of Schools, Golaghat through the respondent No. 6, the Principal of Indranee Devi Higher Secondary School on 01.06.2018, stating that there was no excess drawal on the part of her and accordingly, the respondent No. 3 had issued PPO Order on 12.12.2018, with a direction to release the sum of Rs. 7,00,000/- to her under the Head of DCRG Pensionary Benefits without any recovery. But, the respondent No. 4 allowed to draw a sum of Rs. 4,76,039/- only Page No.# 4/9 from the total sanctioned amount of Rs. 7,00,000/-. Thereafter, she again filed one representation on 24.01.2020, which was forwarded to the Director of Pension by the respondent No. 4 to reconsider her case followed by another letter, dated 12.11.2020, issued by the respondent No. 4. But, the same also failed to evoke any response. Mr. Mahanta also submits that due to some mistake committed by the respondent authorities, she has been suffering a lot and the learned standing counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 4 have been asking date after date for obtaining instructions and he could not get the same and therefore, Mr. Mahanta has contended that this petition may be disposed of by directing the respondent authorities to release the arrear amount of Rs. 2,13,041/-. 4. On the other hand, Mr. U. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 4 submits that the respondent No. 4, the Inspector of Schools, Golaghat has prayed for two weeks time for further scrutinizing the matter and to that effect he had produced one letter of the respondent No. 4 before this court, dated 18.02.2025. 5. Whereas, Mr. Deuri, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 & 5, has produced one letter of the Director of Pension, respondent No. 3, dated 27.05.2024 and submits that no overpay allowances had been found by the Directorate and the same was informed by the Inspector of School, GDC, Golaghat, vide its letter dated 06.09.2018 and 12.11.2020. Mr. Deuri further submits that on the basis of aforesaid clarification, the Directorate had issued PPO Order on 12.12.2018 and finalized the pension case of the petitioner showing no overpay allowances and showing DCRG amount as Rs. 7,00,000/-. 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 letters produced by the learned standing counsel. Page No.# 5/9 7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had retired from service as Principal In-Charge from Indranee Devi Higher Secondary School on 31.03.2016. Thereafter, vide letter dated 12.12.2018, the respondent No. 3 had issued the PPO Order No. ADP/PPO//GPO/2018/052511, in favour of the petitioner for Rs. 25,030/- per month, w.e.f. 01.04.2016 onwards and requested that the Treasury Officer, Dergaon to disburse the aforementioned amount after proper identification. It is also not in dispute that vide another letter dated 12.12.2018, the respondent No. 3 had sanctioned a sum of Rs. 7,00,000/- in favour of the petitioner as Provisional DCRG, wherein overpay was shown as Rs. 0/-. 8. Further, it appears from the Annexure – 7, issued by the Principal of Indranee Devi Higher Secondary School that the petitioner has withdrawn a sum of Rs. 4,76,039/- and provisional pension is Rs. 7,57,860/-. It also appears that the petitioner has filed representation to the respondent No. 4 and also to the respondent No. 3 for releasing the deducted amount of Rs. 2,13,041/-. But, the same failed to evoke any response from the respondent authorities. 9. Further, from the letter dated 18.02.2025, of the respondent No. 4, it appears that the Director of Pension, the respondent No. 3 vide order dated 12.12.2018, had sanctioned a sum of Rs. 7,00,000/- as DCRG, but the same shown Rs. 6,89,080/- as Provisional DCRG and the certificate issued by the Treasury Officer, Dergaon dated 03.02.2020, shown that an amount of Rs. 4,76,039/- was disbursed to the petitioner. 10. Though, the respondent No. 4 has stated that the matter is being examined by him/her and could not ascertain whether the amount of Rs. 2,13,041/- was deducted or not from the petitioner’s pension account, yet, the document produced by Mr. Deuri, the letter dated 27.05.2024, of the respondent no. 3, reveals that the overpay allowances of the petitioner was Rs. 0/- and her Page No.# 6/9 DCRG amount is shown as Rs. 7,00,000/-. 11. Thus, a perusal of the letter dated 18.02.2025, of the respondent No. 4 and also the sanction letter dated 12.12.2018, Annexure Nos. 5 & 6, left no doubt in the mind of the court that sum of Rs. 7,00,000/- was sanctioned to the petitioner as DCRG and Provisional DCRG Rs. 6,89,080/- and her overpay allowance is shown Rs. 0/-. Further, from the Drawal Certificate, Annexure – 7, issued by the Principal of Indrenee Devi Higher Secondary School and also the certificate issued by the Inspector of Schools, GDC, Golaghat, Annexure – 4, show that the petitioner had withdrawn only a sum of Rs. 4,76,039/-. 12. In view of above, it is clear, specifically from the Drawal Certificate and the certificate issued by the Treasury Officer, that a sum of Rs. 2,13,041/- was deducted from the DCRG sanctioned amount to the petitioner, which is rightful entitlement of the petitioner. The Directorate of Pension, respondent No. 3, had clearly stated in the PPO dated 12.12.2018, that over payment to the petitioner is found to be nit. That being so, there is no just ground to withheld the amount and again granting of time to respondent No. 4 to re-examine the matter. 13. It is to be noted here that the right of an employee to pension and gratuity is well settled in plethora of decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court. In the case of State of Jharkhand vs. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava, reported in (2013) 12 SCC 210, Hon’ble Supreme Court has beautifully explained the same in following paragraph:- “8. It is an accepted position that gratuity and pension are not bounties. An employee earns these benefits by dint of his long, continuous, faithful and unblemished service. Conceptually it is so lucidly described in D. S. Nakara v. Union of India reported in (1983) 1 SCC 305, by D.A. Desai, J. who spoke for the Bench, in his inimitable Page No.# 7/9 style, in the following words: 18. The approach of the respondents raises a vital and none too easy of answer, question as to why pension is paid. And why was it required to be liberalised? Is the employer, which expression will include even the State, bound to pay pension? Is there any obligation on the employer to provide for the erstwhile employee even after the contract of employment has come to an end and the employee has ceased to render service? 19. What is a pension? What are the goals of pension? What public interest or purpose, if any, it seeks to serve? If it does seek to serve some public purpose, is it thwarted by such artificial division of retirement pre and post a certain date? We need seek answer to these and incidental questions so as to render just justice between parties to this petition. 20. The antiquated notion of pension being a bounty a gratuitous payment depending upon the sweet will or grace of the employer not claimable as a right and, therefore, no right to pension can be enforced through court has been swept under the carpet by the decision of the Constitution Bench in Deokinandan Prasad v. State of Bihar reported in (1971) 2 SCC 330, wherein this Court authoritatively ruled that pension is a right and the payment of it does not depend upon the discretion of the Government Page No.# 8/9 but is governed by the rules and a government servant coming within those rules is entitled to claim pension. It was further held that the grant of pension does not depend upon anyone's discretion. It is only for the purpose of quantifying the amount having regard to service and other allied matters that it may be necessary for the authority to pass an order to that effect but the right to receive pension flows to the officer not because of any such order but by virtue of the rules. This view was reaffirmed in State of Punjab v. Iqbal Singh [(1976) 2 SCC 1. It is thus a hard earned benefit which accrues to an employee and is in the nature of “property”. This right to property cannot be taken away without the due process of law as per the provisions of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India.” 14. Under such circumstances, this court is inclined to dispose of this writ petition by directing the respondent Nos. 4 & 6 to release the amount of Rs. 2,13,041/- within a period of 15 (fifteen) days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. 15. In the event of failing to make such payment within the stipulated time period, the respondent Nos. 4 & 6 shall have to pay interest to the petitioner as per bank lending rate from the date of deduction of the aforesaid amount from the petitioner’s pension account till the date of payment. 16. The petitioner shall obtain a certified copy of this order and place the same before the respondent authorities within a period of 1 (one) week from today. Page No.# 9/9 17. In terms of above, this writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant