Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010264242024 2026:GAU-AS:7897 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/6744/2024 KULARANJAN DAS S/O- LATE MARA RAN DAS, R/O- MEGH MALLAR HOUSE, RUKMINIGAON, FLAT NO. 503/2, P.O. KHANAPARA, P.S. DISPUR, DISTRICT- KAMRUP (M), ASSAM, GHY-22 VERSUS ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD AND 5 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER (HRA), APDCL, BIJULEE BHAWAN, PALTAN BAZAR, GUWAHATI- 781001 2:THE MANAGING DIRECTOR AEGCL BIJULEE BHAWAN PALTAN BAZAR GUWAHATI- 781001 3:CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER SLDC AEGCL KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI-19 4:GENERAL MANAGER (HR) AEGCL BIJULEE BHAWAN PALTAN BAZAR GUWAHATI- 781001 5:DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (F AND A) I/C PENSION SECTION Page No.# 2/6 O/O THE MANAGING DIRECTOR AEGCL 2ND FLOOR BIJULEE BHAWAN PALTAN BAZAR GUWAHATI- 781001 6:EXECUTIVE ENGINEER MICRO HYDEL INVESTIGATION DIVISION ASEB NOWGON Advocate for the Petitioner : MR H DAS, D BARUAH,MR. B C DEKA Advocate for the Respondent : SC, APDCL, SC, AEGCL BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER Date : 03.06.2026 Heard Mr. H. Das, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. K. Phukan, the learned Standing Counsel for AEGCL and Ms. A. Baruah, the learned counsel appearing on behalf Ms. P. Das, the learned counsel appears for APDCL. 2. By this application filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside and quashing of the impugned order dated 03.02.2014, by which an amount of Rs. 60,291/- (Rupees Sixty Thousand Two Hundred Ninety-One) was sought to be recovered from his terminal benefit. The petitioner has also prayed for setting aside the order dated 29.06.2024, passed by the Deputy General Manager, Pension Section, by which, the request made by the petitioner for payment of Rs. 60,291/-,(Rupees Sixty Thousand Two Hundred Ninety-One) which was deducted from his DCRG amount was Page No.# 3/6 rejected. It is also prayed that the authorities may rectify the actual pay scale and release the actual pension thereof. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that, he retired on 31st of January, 2014, and immediately after his retirement, an order was issued which is impugned in the present petition that an amount of Rs. 60,291/- (Rupees Sixty Thousand Two Hundred Ninety-One) will be recovered from his terminal benefit and that re-fixation would be done by the authorities. It is the further case of the petitioner that the said amount was deducted by the authorities concerned. He, as such, made an application on 02.05.2014, as well as on 05.08.2024. 4. The first application was made before the General Manager Pension Section and the second application was made before the President Secretary of ASEB. 5. It is seen that, by the impugned order dated 29.06.2024, the petitioner was intimated that his request cannot be exceeded to, in view of the fact that, waiver of recovery of any payments made in excess of the entitlement for no fault of employee cannot be before the Judgment of the Apex Court and that the order was passed much before the judgment and the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “State of Punjab vs. Rafiq Masih”, reported in (2015), 4 SCC 334. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner summits that even before the judgment delivered by the Apex court in Rafiq Masih's case, there is a judgment delivered by the Apex court in “Shyam Babu Verma vs. Union of India” reported in (1994) 2 SCC 521; wherein, it was held that any excess payment made to the employees, for no fault of the employee cannot be recovered by Page No.# 4/6 the authorities concern. As such he submits that in the instant case, the same analogy is applicable and no amount can be deducted from any account of the petitioner after the same has been paid for no fault of the employee/petitioner. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for AEGCL, has filed an affidavit, wherein, it was stated that the excess payment has been made to the petitioner erroneously and the same is recovered from his terminal benefit later. 8. It is stated in the affidavit that during the service tenure of the petitioner, while he was promoted from the post of LDA to UDA in 2009, his pay scale was increased. However, it was seen that on completion of 25 years of service, the petitioner was entitled for his second financial upgradation benefit and that the said 25 years of service was completed by the petitioner in 2007. Although, he was promoted in the year 2009, the second upgradation benefit was given to the petitioner with retrospective effect that is from the year 2007, in addition to his regular annual increment. It was also mentioned that promotional increment was given to the petitioner in the year 2009 again, which according to the respondent was erroneously given since the upgradation benefit was given retrospective effect, from 2007. 9. It is further stated that the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court was delivered in Rafiq Masih (supra), case on 18th of December 2014, which was after the recovery made in the instant case from the petitioner. As such, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the said case cannot be applied in the present application. 10. In Shyam Babu's case, (Supra), it was held by the Apex court that the Page No.# 5/6 petitioners in that case were entitled to an enhanced pay scale after a period of 10 years of service but the pay scale was enhanced before the said 10 years of service for no fault of the petitioners. In the said case, the scale of pay was reduced later and the excess amount given to him was sought to be recovered. However, the Apex court directed the same cannot be done. The facts of the case in Shyam Babu Verma’s (Supra) are similar to the instant case. Apart from the said Apex court’s decision, there are other judgments given by this Hon’ble Court, one of such judgment is delivered by this court, in “Dulal Chandra Boruah vs. State of Assam”, reported in 2017, (3) GLR 499; wherein, by applying the ratio of Shyam Babu's case, it was held that, if an employee receives a pay scale higher than what he is entitled to, for no fault of his, it will not be just and proper to recover any excess amount paid to him. 11. In the instant case, it is seen, as reflected in the affidavit in opposition, that the petitioner becomes entitled for his second financial upgradation benefit on completion of his 25 years of service, which he had completed in 2007 and as such, the said benefit was given to him retrospectively from the said year. The petitioner was promoted from the post of LDA to UDA in the year 2009 and in 2009, a promotional increment was given to him, which is before the second financial upgradation benefit given to him retrospectively. The said promotional increment given to him in the year 2009 was not due to his fault. It was given by the authorities, as mentioned in the said affidavit. Further, it is held by the Hon’ble Apex court, that any excess payment given to an employee for no fault of his cannot be later on deducted by the authorities concerned from his terminal benefit or otherwise. 12. In view of the same, this court finds it fit to set aside both the impugned Page No.# 6/6 orders dated 03.02.2014 as well as 29.06.2024. In view of the same, an amount of Rs. 60,291/-, which was deducted from the DCRG amount of the petitioner should be paid back to the petitioner by the authorities concerned. 13. The petition is accordingly allowed and disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant