SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Gau) 297

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.
Someswar Brahma, S/o Lt. Mongal Chandra Brahma – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Assam And 6 Ors. – Respondents
WP(C) 5657 of 2017
Decided on : 14-02-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : MR. H. BEZBARUAH
For the Respondent: MR. B. TALUKDAR, MRS. R. B. BORA, MR. S. R. BARUAH, MR. B. GOGOI

Headnote:

Reconstructed Service Book - Pensionary entitlements - Amount deducted from pension - Petitioner taking into account communication apprehending that said amount would be deducted from his pension as well as pensionary entitlements has approached this Court – Held, Law laid down by Supreme Court would show that in circumstance, when incumbent in question by playing fraud or misrepresentation has drawn excess pay either on account of pay fixation or on account of overstay, principles as laid down by judgment of Supreme Court in case of Rafiq Masih(supra), shall not apply - However, if there is no such allegation of fraud or misrepresentation as in instant case, question of recovery of amount for overstay cannot be made more particularly, in view of judgment of Supreme Court in case of Pandey Jagdishwar Prasad (supra) - However, it is also relevant to take note of that from a perusal of HSLC Certificate which has been enclosed to writ petition as Annexure-10, it is apparent that age of petitioner is 21 years 2 months 0 days as on 01.03.1976 - As per calculation thereof, date of birth of petitioner would be 01.01.1955 and accordingly, petitioner ought to have retired on 30.01.2015 - Therefore, pension of petitioner has to be calculated by taking that his date of birth is 01.01.1955 - Respondent authorities are directed not to recover amount of Rs.4,83,823/-found to be in excess paid to petitioner on account of overstay - Authorities are further directed to re-compute pension of petitioner taking into account that his date of retirement was on 31.01.2015 and not on 31.01.2016 - Petition disposed of.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. H. Bezbaruah, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner; Mr. B. Talukdar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1. I have also heard Mrs. R. B. Bora, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2, 5, 6 and 7; Mr. S. R. Baruah, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.3 and Mr. B. Gogoi, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.4.

2. The case of the petitioner herein is that the petitioner was initially appointed as an Assistant Teacher of Bengrabari Lower Primary School by the respondent authorities on 01.02.1978. On 25.01.2016, the Block Elementary Education Officer, Baksa, Mushalpur had issued an order informing the petitioner that he will retire from his service on 31.01.2016 as per the records of his Service Book. The petitioner was further directed to hand over the charge to his senior most Assistant Teacher in his school i.e. Bijuli Sonapur Lower Primary School. Accordingly, the petitioner retired from his service w.e.f. 31.01.2016. Subsequent thereto, the District Elementary Education Officer had issued an order dated 28.03.2016 whereby allowing provisional pension to the petitioner of an amount of Rs.17,700/-. It is the further case of the petitioner that he lost his Service Book for which he had filed an application on 30.06.2016 before the respondent authority to take necessary actions for reconstructing his Service Book. The petitioner also submitted a police report along with his application on 30.06.2016. Pursuant to the said communication so submitted by the petitioner, the In-charge of Block Elementary Education Officer, Baksa, Mushalpur had communicated to the District Elementary Education Officer, Baksa for taking necessary action for reconstruction of the Service Book of the petitioner so that his pension case could be finalized at an early date.

3. Thereupon, the Director of Education, Bodoland Territorial Council, Kokrajhar had issued a communication to the District Elementary Education Officer on 21.07.2016 to allow reconstruction of the Service Book in respect of the petitioner. It further appears that subsequent thereto, the Service Book was reconstructed and the In-charge, Deputy Inspector of Schools forwarded the said Service Book along with the pension papers and other relevant particulars of the petitioner for finalization of the pension and DCRG to the Director of Education, Bodoland Territorial Council, Kokrajhar. Upon the submission on the said pension papers of the petitioner, the Finance and Accounts Officer of the Government of Assam in the Directorate of Pension, Assam upon examining the said papers found a deficiency in the said pension papers. The deficiency so found as mentioned in the communication dated 13.07.2017 by the Finance and Accounts Officer is reproduced hereinbelow.

    “1) As per HSLC Certificate No.12436 of 1976 Roll Tihu No.105 his age was 21 yrs 2 months x days on 1/3/76. As such his actual date of birth was 2/1/55, accordingly date of retirement was 31/01/2015. But in the Service Book (reconstructed vide your order No.DE/BTC/Acctts-78/Pen/SEC/2007/24 dt 21/07/2016) his date of birth was wrongly recorded as 1/1/1956, and he allowed to go on retirement on 31/01/2016 instead of 31/1/2015. Excess payment comes to Rs.4,83,823/- for the period of”

4. The petitioner thereupon taking into account the said communication dated 13.07.2017 apprehending that the said amount of Rs.4,83,823/-would be deducted from his pension as well as pensionary entitlements has approached this Court by filing the instant writ petition.

5. It appears on record that this Court vide an order dated 15.09.2017 issued notice and directed that the proposed recovery of Rs.4,83,823/-from the pensionary dues should not be made from the petitioner. It further appears that respondent Nos. 2, 5, 6 and 7 have filed their affidavit-in-opposition. Apart from admitting the matters on

        Click Here to Read the rest of this document
        1
        2
        3
        4
        5
        6
        7
        8
        9
        10
        11
        SupremeToday Portrait Ad
        supreme today icon
        logo-black

        An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

        Please visit our Training & Support
        Center or Contact Us for assistance

        qr

        Scan Me!

        India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

        For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

        whatsapp-icon Back to top