Recovery of excess salary payments from lower-grade employees is impermissible when it causes undue hardship, particularly for those nearing retirement or when the overpayment occurred more than five years prior to the recovery order, as such actions are considered iniquitous and arbitrary.

JUDGMENT :

DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.

Heard Ms. S. B. Choudhury, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and Mr. K. Gogoi, the learned Additional Senior Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.1. I have also heard Mr. T. J. Mahanta, the learned Senior counsel assisted by Ms. P. Sarma, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4.

2. The Petitioner herein who is a Grade-IV employee in the Office of the District and Sessions Judge, Hailakandi has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition by raising two issues. First, the non-consideration of the representation dated 13.12.2016 and second as regards recovery made from the salary of the Petitioner pursuant to the order dated 25.07.2022.

3. It is pertinent to take note of that as on date, the Petitioner is around 58 years old and would be superannuating in two years time.

4. In the backdrop of the above, let this Court take up the two issues raised by the Petitioner in the present proceedings.

5. The first issue pertains to non-consideration of the representation dated 13.12.2016. A perusal of the said representation reveals that the Petitioner sought for exonerating him from Charge No.3 as well as drop all charges against him in DP Case No.1/2007 and also sought that no penalty should be imposed upon the Petitioner. The records reveal that the said DP Case No.1/2007 had already been disposed of on 23.12.2016 whereby penalty has been imposed upon the Petitioner withholding three successive annual increments and with a further observation that the Petitioner would be allowed to draw the arrear pay of his suspension period excluding the subsistence allowance already drawn. Under such circumstances, the representation so submitted on 13.12.2016 had already become infructuous inasmuch as the Disciplinary Proceedings has already been disposed of and there is no challenge to the Disciplinary Proceedings before the appropriate forum. The first issue so raised by the Petitioner hence stands rejected.

6. The second issue which is raised is on the question of recovery which has been sought to be made from the Petitioner on the basis of the order dated 25.07.2022. A perusal of the said order reveals that upon verification of the Acquaintance Roll with the pay bill for the month of June, 2022, it was noticed that the Petitioner, who was a peon in the Office of the Member, MACT, Hailakandi, was drawing salary on the basis of Pay Band Rs.24,110/- with Grade Pay Rs.3,900/- whereas, as per the Service Book, it should have been Pay Band 22,490/- with Grade Pay of Rs.3,900/-. It was also noticed that the overdrawal had been running from the month of March, 2011 while the bill was prepared taking Pay Band Rs.6,020/- with Grade Pay of Rs.1,500/- instead of Pay Band Rs.5,680/- with Grade Pay of Rs.1,500/- and accordingly the fixation of pay as per ROP, 2017 was calculated on the resultant basic pay of the incumbent. It was also found that on account of this mistake being committed by the officials, there was an excess payment made to the Petitioner of an amount of Rs.1,81,339/- as overdrawn by the Petitioner as on 30.06.2022. Vide the order dated 25.07.2022, it was observed and directed that the said amount of Rs.1,81,339/- shall be realized in 37 monthly installments from the salary of the Petitioner and out of these 37 monthly installments, the first installment would be Rs.1339/- and the remaining 36