Dilip Chetia vs State Of Assam And 7 Ors.

Heard Mr. P.K. Borah, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. Nayak, learned Standing Counsel for the Finance Department, Mr. N.

Sarma, learned Standing Counsel for the Elementary Education Department, Mr. K. Nayak, learned counsel appearing for the Pension Department.

The petitioner was working as a Head Teacher of Harhi Chapori LP School under theestablishment of Deputy Inspector of Schools,

Dhakuwakhana, Lakhimpur, Assam. The petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.07.2014. After his retirement,

when the matter was processed for payment of his pensionary benefits, the communication dated 21.01.2017 of the Finance and Accounts Officer in

the Directorate of Pension, Assam was made addressed to the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Dhakuwakhana, by which it was provided that during his

service tenure, the petitioner was paid a salary higher than his actual scale, whereas his actual salary ought to have been Rs.524/- per month.

Accordingly, by the said communication, the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Dhakuwakhana was required to do the needful for recovery of the excess

payment made from the pensionary benefits of the petitioner.

The said communication has been assailed in this writ petition on the ground that asper the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court,

recovery from the pensionary benefits cannot be made in respect of any salary that was paid to an employee during his service period for no fault of

his own.

In the communication of 21.01.2017, it is noticed that there is no such conclusion ofthe Finance and Accounts Officer in the Directorate of Pension,

Assam that the excess salary was paid to the petitioner because of any fault of his or because of any overt act on his part, which had contributed to

such payment of excess salary. In the absence of any such material, it cannot be concluded whether the excess salary was paid to the petitioner

because of any fault of his.

The law in this respect has been settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shyam Babu Verma and others â€"vs- Union of India and others,

reported in (1994) 2 SCC 521 and State of Punjab and Others â€"vs- Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others, reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334, wherein

it had been held that in the event an excess salary is paid to an employee during his service tenure because of no fault of his, such excess payment

cannot be recovered from the retirement benefits.

The aforesaid provisions of law squarely applicable to the fact of this case and as such,the recovery sought to the made by the communication of

21.01.2017 would not unsustainable in its present form. However, as no material has been produced before this Court as to whether the excess salary

was paid to the petitioner because of any overt act of the petitioner, this Court deems it appropriate that the ends of justice would be met if the

authorities in the Pension Department make an assessment as to whether there was any contribution on the part of the petitioner in receiving such

excess salary during his service tenure. In the event, if it is found that there was no such contribution from the petitioner leading to such excess

payment, the authorities shall not insist upon the recovery in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as indicated above.

Further, in the event, the authorities arrive at a situation where the excess paymentcan no longer be recovered from the pensionary benefits, the

authorities shall consider and process the payment of pension to the petitioner as per law.

However, as submitted by Mr. P. Nayak, learned Standing Counsel for the Finance Department, it is provided that as the correct pay of the

petitioner ought to have been Rs.524/- per month, the authorities shall proceed with the payment of pension by taking into account the correct pay that

the petitioner ought to have received and not the incorrect higher pay that was paid to him.

It is further provided that the provisional pension paid to the petitioner shall becontinued to be paid till a final decision on his regular pension is taken

and given effect to. In terms of the above, the writ petition stands disposed of.