Page No.# 1/8 GAHC010214942015 2026:GAU-AS:9587 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/7986/2015 DIPENDRA NATH THAKURIA AND ANR. S/O- LT. RAJENDRA NATH THAKURIA, VILL. and P.O.- BHOGPUR, DIST.- BARPETA, ASSAM. 2: MANORANJAN SARMA S/O- LT. SASHI BHUSAN SARMA VILL. and P.O.- MAGURIA VIA PATHSALA DIST.- BARPETA ASSAM VERSUS ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD. and 5 ORS. REP. BY ITS CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER HRA BIJULI BHAWAN, PALTAN BAZAR, GHY- 1. 2:THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER D LAR APDCL BIJULI BHAWAN GHY- 1. 3:THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER F and A AUDIT APDCL BIJULI BHAWAN GHY- 1. 4:ASSTT. GENERAL MANAGER LAR APDCL BIJULI BHAWAN GHY- 1. 5:THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER Page No.# 2/8 BARPETA ELECTRICAL CIRCLE APDCL BARPETA. 6:THE ASSTT. GENERAL MANAGER PATHSALA DIVISION APDCL PATHSALA Advocate for the Petitioner : MS.L BORAH, MS.J DAS,MR.H DAS Advocate for the Respondent : SC, APDCL, , – B E F O R E – HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. H. Das, Advocate. For the Respondent(s) : Mr. K. P. Pathak, Standing Counsel, APDCL. Date on which judgment is reserved : N/A Date of pronouncement of judgment : 14.07.2026 Whether the pronouncement is of the operative part of the judgment ? : No. Whether the full judgment has been pronounced : Yes. Page No.# 3/8 J UDGMENT & O RDER (ORAL) Heard Mr. H. Das, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners. Also heard Mr. K. P. Pathak, learned Standing Counsel, APDCL. 2] By way of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ petitioners have assailed the order dated 17.09.2015 passed by the Chief General Manager (HRA), APDCL, Guwahati, whereby the pay of the petitioners was refixed. 3] The brief facts of the case are that the two petitioners retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.03.2014 and 31.12.2014, respectively. Both the petitioners retired as Subordinate Engineer (Grade-II) from the Pathsala Electrical Sub-Division, APDCL (Lower Assam Zone). During the course of their service, they were granted the benefit of two yearly increments during the period from 10.04.1989 to 31.08.2013. Subsequently, upon detection of an error in the pay fixation of the petitioners, their pay was refixed, and upon such refixation, it was found that an amount of Rs.1,72,979/- had been overdrawn during the aforesaid period. The said fact was communicated to them by letter dated 05.09.2013. 4] Thereafter, by orders dated 17.09.2013 and 18.09.2013, recovery of the said amount was directed to be made from the monthly salary of the petitioners till their retirement, and the balance amount was directed to be recovered from their terminal benefits. The aforesaid orders dated 17.09.2013 and 18.09.2013 were challenged before this Court in WP(C) No. 7371 of 2013, wherein this Court, after hearing the parties, was pleased to set aside and quash the said orders. Page No.# 4/8 5] This Court further observed that, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in State of Punjab & Ors. v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) & Ors., reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334, it was not necessary to determine whether the salary drawn by the petitioners was in excess of their entitlement or not. This was because, even assuming that the petitioners had received salary in excess of their entitlement, they would nevertheless be protected from recovery by virtue of situations (ii) and (iii) enumerated in Rafiq Masih (supra). 6] It was further observed that, admittedly, on the date of issuance of the impugned orders dated 17.09.2013 and 18.09.2013, petitioner No.1 was due to retire within one year, while petitioner No.2 was due to retire shortly thereafter. The alleged excess payment had continued for a period of about 24 years prior to the issuance of the recovery orders. In such circumstances, this Court held that the proposed recovery was not only impermissible in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court but was also harsh and iniquitous, particularly as the recovery was sought to be effected from the terminal benefits of the petitioners. 7] The relevant observations contained in paragraph 18 of Rafiq Masih (supra) read as follows: “18. It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship, which would govern employees on the issue of recovery, where payments have mistakenly been made by the employer, in excess of their entitlement. Be that as it may, based on the decisions referred to herein above, we may, as a ready reference, summarise the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law: (i) Recovery from employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV service (or Group 'C' and Group 'D' service). (ii) Recovery from retired employees, or employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery. (iii) Recovery from employees, when the excess payment has been made Page No.# 5/8 for a period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery is issued. (iv) Recovery in cases where an employee has wrongfully been required to discharge duties of a higher post, and has been paid accordingly, even though he should have rightfully been required to work against an inferior post. (v) In any other case, where the Court arrives at the conclusion, that recovery if made from the employee, would be iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary to such an extent, as would far outweigh the equitable balance of the employer's right to recover.” 8] Subsequent to the aforesaid decision of this Court, whereby the recovery was interfered with, the Chief General Manager (HRA), APDCL, Guwahati, by order dated 17.09.2015, clarified that no recovery would be made from the petitioners pursuant to the orders dated 17.09.2013 and 18.09.2013. However, it was further clarified that the corrected pay fixation of the petitioners would remain unchanged. The consequence of the said decision was that the retirement benefits, including pension, payable to the petitioners stood reduced. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners have challenged the aforesaid order dated 17.09.2015 in the present writ petition. 9] Mr. H. Das, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondents ought not to have corrected the pay fixation of the petitioners at the fag end of their service by revising the pay fixation pertaining to the period from 1989 to 2013. In support of the said submission, reliance has been placed on the decision of the Apex Court in Sushil Kumar Singhal v. Pramukh Sachiv, Irrigation Department & Ors., reported in (2014) 16 SCC 444. 10] Per contra, Mr. K. P. Pathak, learned Standing Counsel for APDCL submits that, although this Court had interfered with the recovery of the excess amount in the earlier round of litigation, it had not interfered with the refixation of pay. Therefore, according to him, the present writ petition is not maintainable and is Page No.# 6/8 barred by the principle of res judicata. He further submits that there is no legal prohibition preventing the respondent authorities from correcting an erroneous pay fixation. On the contrary, permitting such an erroneous fixation to continue would amount to perpetuating an illegality. 11] I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. I have also perused the materials available on record and considered the decisions relied upon at the Bar. 12] Admittedly, both the petitioners retired from service on 31.03.2014 and 31.12.2014, respectively. Prior to their retirement, by communication dated 05.09.2013, the respondents, upon detecting an error in the pay fixation pertaining to the period from 1989 to 2013, refixed their pay and communicated the same to the petitioners. Consequent thereto, by orders dated 17.09.2013 and 18.09.2013, recovery of the alleged excess amount was directed to be made from their terminal benefits. Those recovery orders were challenged before this Court in the earlier round of litigation and were set aside. 13] It is, however, an admitted position that the communication dated 05.09.2013, whereby the pay of the petitioners had been refixed, was never challenged before this Court in the earlier writ proceedings. 14] Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in Sushil Kumar Singhal (supra) to contend that the respondent authorities could not have corrected the pay fixation of the petitioners at the fag end of their service. However, upon careful perusal of the said judgment, this Court finds that the facts therein are clearly distinguishable. In Sushil Kumar Singhal (supra), the correction of pay was effected after the employee had Page No.# 7/8 already retired upon discovery of an earlier mistake. In the present case, however, the pay fixation for the period from 1989 to 2013 was corrected during the service tenure of the petitioners, by communication dated 05.09.2013, prior to their retirement. 15] It is well settled that a judgment is an authority for what it actually decides and not for what may logically follow from it. Reference in this regard may be made to State of Haryana v. Ranbir alias Rana, reported in (2006) 5 SCC 167; State of Orissa v. Sudhansu Sekhar Misra, reported in AIR 1968 SC 647; and Anuj Jain v. Axis Bank Ltd., reported in (2020) 8 SCC 401. 16] In the present case, admittedly, the pay fixation of the petitioners was corrected while they were still in service, albeit shortly before their retirement. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to point out any statutory provision, rule, or legal principle prohibiting the respondents from correcting an erroneous pay fixation during the service tenure of an employee. Moreover, in the earlier round of litigation, while this Court interfered with the recovery orders, it did not interfere with the corrected pay fixation. 17] It is also not in dispute that an error had indeed crept into the pay fixation of the petitioners during the period from 1989 to 2013. 18] In view of the aforesaid facts, this Court finds no infirmity in the action of the respondents in correcting the erroneous pay fixation. To permit the earlier erroneous fixation to continue would amount to perpetuating an illegality, which this Court cannot countenance. Consequently, this Court finds no merit in the present writ petition. Page No.# 8/8 19] Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs JUDGE Comparing Assistant Pranab Chand ra Das Digitally signed by Pranab Chandra Das Date: 2026.07.14 17:05:12 +05'30'