Page No.# 1/13 GAHC010095302025 2026:GAU-AS:8700- DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WA/195/2025 FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA AND 8 ORS. REP. BY THE GENERAL MANAGER FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA REGIONAL OFFICE, ASSAM, PALTAN BAZAR, GUWAHATI-701008. 2: EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (NORTH EAST ZONE) FCI G.L. PUBLICATION BUILDING G.S. ROAD GUWAHATI-781008. 3: GENERAL MANAGER FCI REGIONAL OFFICE ASSAM PALTAN BAZAR GUWAHATI-781008. 4: DIVISIONAL MANAGER FCI ULUBARI MITRA BUILDING GUWAHATI-781007. 5: DIVISIONAL MANAGER FCI A.T. ROAD HAIBORGAON NAGAON PIN-782002. 6: MANAGER ACCOUNTS FCI ULUBARI Page No.# 2/13 MITRA BUILDING GUWAHATI-781007. 7: MANAGER ACCOUNTS FCI. A.T. ROAD HAIBORGAON NAGAON-782002. 8: MANAGER (IR) FCI. ULUBARI MITRA BUILDING GUWAHATI-781007. 9: MANAGER DEPOT FOOD STORAGE DEPOT. NEW GUWAHATI BAMUNIMAIDAM GUWAHATI-781021 VERSUS BINDESWARI SINGH AND 11 ORS. S/O. JHARI LAL SINGH, R/O. KARBI NAGAR, H/NO. 10, BAMUNIMAIDAM, GUWAHATI-21. 2:NAWAL SAH S/O. LT. KAMAL SAH R/O. VILL.- BILPAR OF SUNCHALI H/NO. 46 NOONMATI GUWAHATI20. 3:RADHE MAHATO S/O. BAJRANGI MAHATO R/O. SANKAR NAGAR LAST GATE H/NO. 2 DIST. KAMRUP (M) GUWAHATI-20. 4:RAM CHALITRA YADAV S/O. SHIV NANDAN YADAV R/O. BISHNU RAVA NAGAR H/NO. 5 NOONMATI GUWAHATI-20 5:JIBACH SAHANI Page No.# 3/13 S/O. PRADIP SAHANI R/O. GANESHMANDIR SHIVAM PATH BYE LANE NO. 3 H/O. NO. 9 P/O. NOONMATI GUWAHATI-20 ASSAM. 6:SULENDRA KR. SAHANI S/O. LT. ANANDI SAHANI R/O. BISNI RAVA NAGAR H/NO. 18 P/O. NOONMATI GUWAHATI-781020 ASSAM. 7:RAM ISWAR KUMAR S/O. RADHEY RAY R/O. JANTA NAGAR H/NO. 15 P/O. NOONMATI DIST. KAMRUP (M) GUWAHATI-781020 ASSAM. 8:ARVIND KUMAR SAHANI S/O. ANUPLAL SAHANI R/O. 6 NO. RAILWAY GATE H/NO. 144 P/O. BAMUNIMAIDAM DIST. KAMRUP GUWAHATI-781021 ASSAM. 9:DILIP KUMAR YADAV S/O. RAMU YADAV R/O. BISHNU RAVA NAGAR NOONMATI GUWAHATI-781020 ASSAM. 10:SHIV SHANKAR SHARMA S/O. MATUKDEV SARMA R/O. VILL.- SAHANKAR NAGAR H/NO. 33 P/O. NOONMATI GUWAHATI-781020 Page No.# 4/13 ASSAM. 11:DIPLAL SAH S/O. MAHINDRA SAH R/O. BISHNU RAVA NAGAR H/NO. 22 P/O. NOONMATI GUWAHATI-781020 ASSAM. 12:RANJIT KUMAR RAY S/O. RAMDEO RAY R/O. GANESH MANDIR PATH BYE LANE NO. 30 P/O. NOONMATI GUWAHATI-781020 ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P K ROY, MRS. A CHAKRABORTY,MR. S K CHAKRABORTY Advocate for the Respondent : MR A DASGUPTA(R1 TO 12), MR J K SHARMA(R1 TO 12),MS B DAS(R1 TO 12) Linked Case : WP(C)/1223/2023 BINDESWARI SINGH AND 11 ORS SON OF JHARI LAL SINGH RESIDENT OF KARBI NAGAR HOUSE NO. 10 BAMUNIMAIDAM GUWAHATI-21. 2: NAWAL SAH SON OF LATE KAMAL SAH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- SUNCHALI BILPAR HOUSE NO. 46 Page No.# 5/13 NOONMATI GUWAHATI-20. 3: RADHE MAHATO SON OF BAJRANGI MAHATO RESIDENT OF SANKAR NAGAR LAST GATE HOUSE NO. 2 P.O- NOONMATI DISTRICT- KAMRUP GUWAHATI-20 ASSAM. 4: RAM CHALITRA YADAV SON OF SHIV NANDAN YADAV RESIDENT OF BISHNU RAVA NAGAR HOUSE NO. 5 NOONMATI GUWAHATI- 781020. 5: JIBACH SAHANI SON OF PRADIP SAHANI RESIDENT OF GANESHMANDIR SHIVAM PATH BYE LANE NO. 3 HOUSE NO. 9 P.O.- NOONMATI GUWAHATI- 781020 ASSAM. 6: SULENDRA KR. SAHANI SON OF LATE ANANDI SAHANI RESIDENT OF BISNU RAVA NAGAR HOUSE NO. 18 P.O.- NOONMATI GUWAHATI- 781020 Page No.# 6/13 ASSAM. 7: RAM ISWAR KUMAR SON OF RADHEY RAY RESIDENT OF JANTA NAGAR HOUSE NO. 15 P.O.- NOONMATI DISTRICT- KAMRUP GUWAHATI- 781020 ASSAM. 8: ARVIND KUMAR SAHANI SON OF ANUPLAL SAHANI RESIDENT OF 6 NO. RAILWAY GATE HOUSE NO. 144 P.O.- BAMUNIMAIDAM DISTRICT- KAMRUP GUWAHATI- 781021 ASSAM. 9: DILIP KUMAR YADAV SON OF RAMU YADAV RESIDENT OF BISHNU RAVA NAGAR NOONMATI GUWAHATI- 781020 ASSAM. 10: SHIV SHANKAR SHARMA SON OF MATUKDEV SARMA RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- SAHANKAR NAGAR HOUSE NO. 33 P.O.- NOONMATI DISTRICT- KAMRUP GUWAHATI- 781020 Page No.# 7/13 ASSAM. 11: DIPLAL SAH SON OF MAHINDRA SAH RESIDENT OF BISHNU RAVA NAGAR HOUSE NO. 22 P.O.- NOONMATI GUWAHATI- 781020 ASSAM. 12: RANJIT KUMAR RAY SON OF RAMDEO RAY RESIDENT OF GANESH MANDIR PATH BYE LANE-3 SHIVAM PATH HOUSE NO.- 30 P.O.- NOONMATI GUWAHATI- 781020 ASSAM. VERSUS FOOD COPORATION OF INDIA AND 8 ORS REPRESENTED BY CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR 16-20 BARAKKHAMBA LANE NEW DELHI- 110001. 2:EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR NORTH EAST ZONE FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA G.L. PUBLICATION BUILDING G.S. ROAD GUWAHATI- 781008. 3:GENERAL MANAGER FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA REGIONAL OFFICE ASSAM PALTAN BAZAR Page No.# 8/13 GUWAHATI- 781008. 4:DIVISIONAL MANAGER FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA ULUBARI MITRA BUILDING GUWAHATI- 781007. 5:DIVISIONAL MANAGAR FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA A.T. ROAD HAIBORGAON NAGAON PIN- 782002. 6:MANAGER ACCOUNTS FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA ULUBARI MITRA BUILDING GUWAHATI- 781007. 7:MANAGER ACCOUNTS FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA A.T. ROAD HAIBORGAON NAGAON PIN- 782002. 8:MANAGER (IR) FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA ULUBARI MITRA BUILDING GUWAHATI- 781007. 9:MANAGER DEPOT FOOD STORAGE DEPOT NEW GUWAHATI BAMUNIMAIDAM GUWAHATI- 781021. ------------ Advocate for : MR A DASGUPTA Advocate for : SC Page No.# 9/13 F C I appearing for FOOD COPORATION OF INDIA AND 8 ORS For the appellant (s) : Mr. P. K. Roy, Sr. Advocate Mr. S.K. Chakraborty, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Ashis Dasgupta, Sr. Advocate Ms. Basabi Das, Advocate –B E F O R E – HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY 17.06.2026 (Ashutosh Kumar, CJ) We have heard Mr. P.K. Roy, learned senior Advocate for the appellants/Food Corporation of India (FCI) & others, and Mr. Ashis Dasgupta, learned senior Advocate for the respondents. It appears that wrongly incentive amount was paid to the respondents and many others, who were engaged by the FCI as labourers, which anomaly came to be detected only on the report made by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG). A conscious decision was thereafter taken by the appellants to recover the apportioned amount of incentive from such labourers, to which they were not entitled. This decision was questioned by some of the labourers, wherein different Benches of this Court, relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab & Ors. vs Rafiq Masih (White Washer), (2015) 4 SCC 334, directed for stopping of such recoveries without first holding inquiry against individual labourers, and to resume such recovery only after such Page No.# 10/13 inquiry is completed. However, quite fortuitously, recoveries have already been made from the respondents herein. By the impugned judgment, the Bench permitted the appellants to initiate appropriate proceedings against the respondents, but only after refunding the recovered amounts to the respondents, which, according to the appellants, had been wrongly paid to them. This condition has been questioned by the appellants on several grounds, namely, that a huge amount of money was wrongly paid to the labourers and that if such inquiry is made contingent on the refund of money, which has already been recovered, again a huge amount of money will have to be spared from the coffers of the appellants and it would rather be difficult to claw it back from the labourers on the conclusion of the proceedings, because many of the labourers, from whom the recoveries are to be made or have been made, would have retired in the interregnum, or would have left the job of porter/labourer with the FCI/appellants. While insisting for the continuance of such contingent order passed in the impugned judgment, Mr. Dasgupta, learned senior Advocate has pointed out that if the inquiry proceeding is allowed to be conducted against the respondents without refunding the money to the respondents, it would only be an empty formality, with the appellants/organization/FCI having the liberty to, somehow or other, hold the respondents responsible for the wrong payments of the incentive. In fact, going by the principle of “contra preferentum”, it would be more appropriate that the money already recovered from the respondents be refunded to them before initiation of any proceeding against them. Page No.# 11/13 It would be necessary for us here to point out some factual details resulting in the unmerited payment of incentive to the labourers. The Comptroller and Auditor General of India had made an audit of the FCI and in such audit, it was found that wrong certification was made with respect to the number of bags, which were claimed to have been lifted. The requirement was of lifting 57521 bags, but certification was made of 12,43,312 bags, requiring payment of incentive to the labourers. The natural inference of this disclosure was that undue payments were made to the labourers, including the respondents herein, beyond their entitlement. On the basis of the afore-noted audit report, recovery from such labourers was initiated from their respective salaries/wages, which was, as noted above, questioned by many of them. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed an order for stopping the recovery and resume it only after an opportunity was given to the labourers to explain their cause, and after quantification of the amount, which was sought to be recovered. While directing for such contingent proceeding, a Bench of this Court permitted the appellants to conduct departmental inquiry. However, by that time, recoveries had already been made from the labourers who had challenged such decision of the FCI. Same is the case with the respondents herein. This Court has been informed that for the fault of this over certification, which resulted in the wrong payment of incentive, many of the employees in the managerial cadre of the FCI have been subjected to disciplinary proceedings and some of them have been punished as well. In fact, the list of such employees having been subjected to Page No.# 12/13 disciplinary proceedings, which has been supplied by Mr. Roy, surprises us for the reason that majority of them have only been left with censure and nothing beyond. By no stretch of imagination can it be said that the labourers were responsible for such over certification resulting in the payment of incentive amount to them. Only for the reason of such illegal payment swelling up to the huge amount, it appears, that some of the co-ordinate Benches permitted such recoveries but only after proper inquiry was made with respect to the individual labourers, who had received such inventive. Except for two of the labourers/respondents in the present appeal, who have left the service of the FCI, rest of others are still working with the FCI, but since they are not in permanent employment, they might leave the employment and go away. In that event, it would be very difficult to claw back the money, if at all it is found in the inquiry that over payment was made to them. Since the apportioned amounts have already been recovered from all the respondents herein, we deem it appropriate to, and modify the judgment impugned to the extent that the inquiry proceedings against the respondents be concluded within a period of 60 (sixty) days from today, whereafter, if it is found that no money is required to be recovered, the money already recovered shall be transmitted into the accounts of the respondents. However, it shall not be necessary to first refund the already recovered amount for initiating any proceeding against the respondents. The timeline fixed by this Court for concluding the inquiry Page No.# 13/13 proceedings must be adhered to at all costs. With the afore-noted modification in the impugned judgment, the appeal stands disposed off. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant