Recovery of excess payments from retired employees without misrepresentation or fraud is impermissible, emphasizing protection for Class III employees facing undue hardship.

JUDGMENT :

DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.

Heard Mr. R. Sarma, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. T. R. Gogoi, the learned Government Advocate appears on behalf of the respondent No.1; Mr. H. K. Das, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent No.2; Mr. B. Chakraborty, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent Nos.3 & 4 and Mr. A. Chaliha, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent No.5.

2. The petitioner herein has approached this Court challenging the recovery of an amount of Rs.1,83,583/- from the petitioner and submitted that the said recovery so made from the petitioner was contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and Others vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Others reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 wherein the parameters were laid down by the Supreme Court as to when recovery would not be permissible under law.

3. For ascertaining the said dispute, this Court finds it relevant to take note of the brief facts which led to the filing of the present proceedings.

4. On the basis of an order dated 14.11.1991, the petitioner was appointed as a Lower Division Assistant in the scale of pay of Rs.1065-20-1225-30-1345-ED-40-1635-50-2035-60-2095/- with other allowances as admissible under the Rules. Subsequent thereto, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Upper Division Assistant on the basis of an order dated 08.04.2004. The petitioner continued to render his service as an Upper Division Assistant till he retired on 31.12.2021.

5. The respondent No.4 had issued a letter on 10.04.2023 informing the respondent No.2 that in pursuance to the letter dated 09.03.2023, the application of the petitioner was forwarded for final withdrawal of the sums to the credit of the petitioner's GPF Account No.ORS/4986 and an amount of Rs.8,39,732/- representing the entire/available/residual deposit with interested calculated up to June, 2022.

6. In the meantime, there was another communication issued by the respondent No.4 dated 02.12.2022 to the respondent No.5 that the Government of Assam had issued a letter dated 07.11.2022 thereby sanctioning an amount of Rs.7,27,922/- being the commuted value of Rs.7,403/- out of the pension of Rs.22,210/- per month in respect to the petitioner being the retired Upper Division Assistant and holder of the Pension Paying Order No.919111295296. It was also mentioned that a reduced pension of Rs.14,807/- per month consequent on first commutation be paid to the petitioner from the date of receipt of the CVP by the petitioner or three months from the issue of the authority whichever is earlier. It was mentioned that the pension shall restore after 14 years (in the case of Assam Government Pensioners)/15 years in case of AIS Pensioners and Higher Judicial Pensioners of the Assam Government from the date of commencement of the reduced pension.

7. The respondent No.4 also informed the respondent No.5 to arrange payment of Rs.8,72,655/- to the petitioner after recovery of an amount of Rs.1,83,583/- which is to be recovered from the arrear and future relief.

8. Taking into account that the petitioner's pension and the other pensionary benefits would be withheld, the petitioner was compelled to deposit an amount of Rs.1,62,648/- in Kamrup Treasury on the alleged ground that there was an overpayment of pay and allowances.

9. It is the specific case of the petitioner that there was no fraud or misrepresentation committed by the petitioner which had resulted in an overdrawal of Rs,1,83,583/- which is sought to be recov