Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010041462019 2026:GAU-AS:1739 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/1372/2019 Y. DIGENDRA SINGHA S/O- LT Y. INDERJIT SINGHA, VILL AND P.O. JHARAKHUL, DIST- CACHAR, ASSAM, PIN- 788119 VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND 2 ORS. REP. BY THE SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI- 110001 2:DIRECTOR GENERAL OF ASSAM RIFLES SHILLONG MEGHALAYA-11 3:THE COMMANDANT 25TH ASSAM RIFLES C/O 99AP Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. S BORA, MS. N CHAKRABORTY Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I., MR. D C BORAH (C.G.C, R1-R3) BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR ORDER 09.02.2026 Heard Ms S Bora, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr R K D Choudhury, learned Deputy SGI, who has appeared in the matter, on being informed that the learned CGC was not available for the day. Page No.# 2/3 2. The matter relates to a grievance against the proposed recovery of erroneous salary given to the petitioner. The recovery is sought to be made after the retirement of the petitioner, from the pensionary and other benefits arising on the superannuation of the petitioner. 3. The case of the respondents is that the petitioner had been afforded some erroneous upgradations on the ground of the ACP/MACP benefits, and, therefore, when the pensionary benefits were being calculated, it was seen that the petitioner had been paid an excess amount of Rs. 6,42,229/-, which was required to be recovered. 4. The stand of the respondents in the affidavit-in-opposition filed in this case is that the pension of the petitioner has been fixed at the corrected rate and the petitioner is also drawing the same. 5. Ms Bora, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is no allegation that the petitioner was involved in the erroneous calculation while fixing the pay of the petitioner and, therefore, as per the law laid down in State of Punjab and Ors. vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Others; reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334, the recovery from the retiral benefits and pension of an incumbent is not allowed in law. 6. The learned Deputy SGI has fairly submitted that since the records do not reveal that the petitioner had any hand in the calculation of the pay to be fixed on the ground of ACP/MACP, the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court would be applicable in this case, and, therefore, it would not be proper and legal to recover from the pensionary benefits of the petitioner. The petitioner had retired as a Warrant Officer (Cipher). 7. Having gone through the Judgment of the Rafiq Masih (supra), this Court is of the view that the recovery from the pay of a retired employee cannot have judicial approval, and, therefore, in this particular case, the respondents are restrained from making recovery of any excess payment made to the petitioner on the basis of an erroneous calculation of the benefits of the ACP/MACP, which may have been granted to him prior Page No.# 3/3 to his superannuation, but are sought to be recovered now from his pensionary benefits. It is, however, made clear that the respondents would be at liberty to fix the pensionary benefits of the petitioner at a correct rate as per the actual benefits of ACP/MACP that the petitioner would be eligible to, based on his service records. 8. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of, by setting aside the letter dated 28.05.2018. 9. No cost(s). JUDGE Comparing Assistant