Back
2025 Supreme(Gau) 1010
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT AT GUWAHATI (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) ITANAGAR
ROBIN PHUKAN, J.
Shri Tamuli Takoh - Appellant
Versus
The State of Arunachal Pradesh - Respondent
W.P.(C) No. 386(AP)/2024.
Decided on : 16-06-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. T.T. Tara.
For the Respondents: Mr. S. Tapin, G.A. (A.P.).
Recovery of excess salary from retired employees is impermissible unless justified by mandatory prior regulations. Exemptions for those over age 57 complicate enforcement of such recoveries.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - This petition challenged the deduction order issued related to income recovery from the leave salary of the petitioner, who retired as Superintending Engineer. The deduction was made due to alleged excess payments and non-compliance with mandatory departmental examinations. (Para 2)
(B) Recovery of salary - Law prohibits recovery from retired employees or those due to retire within a year if excess payments were made. Court emphasized that deductions should not occur unless the employee received undue benefit with knowledge. (Paras 10, 11)
(C) Importance of prior orders and exemptions - Examined the applicability of exemptions for employees over 57 years for departmental examinations and precedence of prior orders regarding necessity of those examinations. (Paras 17)
(D) Final ruling - The court ruled the deduction order to be arbitrary and illegal and directed the release of the deducted amount with interest. (Para 18) (E)
Issues: The legality of the deduction order and the applicability of exemptions based on previous orders and age of the petitioner. (Para 18) (F)
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that unless clear and prior regulations mandate recovery of salary, particularly in cases of retirement close to recovery orders, the deductions should be avoided. (Para 11)
Result: The deduction order quashed; amount to be released with interest.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. deduction order from the petitioner's leave salary (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. employment history and necessary examinations for promotions (Para 4) |
| 3. arguments on grounds of unlawful recovery (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. counterarguments regarding lawful deductions (Para 7) |
| 5. court's rationale emphasizing impermissibility of recovery from retired employees. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 6. reasons for setting aside the impugned order (Para 17 , 18) |
| 7. final ruling on the case being allowed and order set aside. (Para 19) |
JUDGMENT :
ROBIN PHUKAN, J.
Heard Mr. T.T. Tara, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. Tapin, learned Senior Government Advocate, Arunachal Pradesh for the respondents.
2. This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the deduction order No. PHED-1/EZ/11/09, dated 16.05.2024, issued by the Chief Engineer (E/Z), Public Health Engineering Department and Water Supply Department (PHED and WSD hereinafter, respectively), Namsai.
3. It is to be noted here that vide impugned order dated 16.05.2024, the Chief Engineer (E/Z), PHED and WSD, Namsai, the respondent No. 3 had directed to deduct an amount of Rs. 4,33,138/- from the cash equivalent to leave salary of the petitioner herein, on the recommendation of the Director of Audit and Pension, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Naharlagun, respondent No. 5.
4. The respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4 have filed their affidavit-in- opposition in this case, wherein a stand has been taken that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Engineer on 05.02.1991, under Public Works Department and later on, he was absorbed under the PHED on 19.06.1996. It is also stated that as per the CPWD Manual Vol-I, Chapter – 4, Paragraph 13 (a) (i) (ii) (iii) (b) (c) (d) (i) (ii) (iii) & (iv), provides that effect of Examination Test on increments in respect of Executive Engineer, Assistant Engineer & Junior Engineer, wherein they must have passed the Department Examination within the period of 2 years and if they paid to pass the examination within the period of 2 years, then they will neither earn increments nor will be promoted to circle charge and they will also be liable to be reverted if they fail to pass the examination within 5 years after the appointment as Executive Engineer. The aforementioned CPWD was adopted by the PHED w.e.f. 19.07.2000, in to to and thereafter, the Finance Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh had also outlined the aforesaid criteria in the letter dated 22.10.2010, and confirmed that the Departmental Examination for Junior Engineer, Assistant Engineer and Executive Engineer is compulsory for granting annual increments.
4.1. It is also stated that any amount paid/received without authority of law can always be recovered, barring few exceptions of extreme hardships, but not as a matter of right and therefore, claim made by the petitioner for waiving of recovery, citing the provisions of O.M. dated 02.03.2016, would not be in order, in case, where the pay fixations have not been verified by Directorate of Audit and Pension being the competent authority under the Government of Arunachal Pradesh for vetting of pay fixations and as such, the claim of the petitioner is also impermissible. Under such circumstances, it is contended to dismiss the petition.
5. The petitioner herein had filed his reply to the affidavit in opposition of the respondent authorities. He denied the statement and averments so made in the affidavit in opposition. It is stated that the PHED & WSD of Government of Arunachal Pradesh had adopted the CPWD Manual vide order dated PHE/Sectt-15/97/237-46, dated 19.07.2000, which clearly mentioned about passing of departmental Accounts Examination by Junior Engineer and Assistant Engineers. Nowhere in the said order, passing of departmental examination by the Executive Engineer is mentioned.
5.1. It is also stated that there is also provision for exemption from passing of the departmental accounts examination who have reached 57 years having good s
