Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Gau) 908

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
RAJESH MAZUMDAR, J.
Dibakor Phukan, S/o. Sri Ageswar Phukan And Ors. – Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Assam, Represented By The Commissioner And Secretary And Ors. – Respondent
WP(C) 6128 of 2023
Decided On : 15-05-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners:Mr. S. Borthakur Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. B. Gogoi. Addl. AG : Mr. R. K. Talukdar, SC, AG.

Upon absorption into government service due to organizational closure, past service recognized for pension and pay fixation must be counted for career progression schemes. Retrospective recovery of such benefits after retirement is impermissible under principles of equity and protection against arbitrary state action.

Headnote:(A) Service Law - Career Progression Schemes - Counting of past service - Employees absorbed from a closed statutory body into government service - Whether past service rendered in the original organization can be excluded - Court held that once past service is recognized for pension and pay fixation, it must be counted for career progression benefits - Denying such benefits after long-term acknowledgment is inequitable and barred. (Paras 27, 28, 29)

(B) Recovery of excess pay - Principles of Equity - Post-superannuation recovery - Employer-employee relationship ends upon retirement - Recovery of benefits paid for years after retirement is impermissible as it constitutes punitive action against the employee. (Paras 19, 31, 32)

(C) Estoppel in Service Matters - State adopting a clear position by granting benefits for years - Authorities are estopped from retrospectively withdrawing benefits after acknowledging them for extended periods, particularly when the absorption was mandated by organizational closure. (Para 17)

Facts of the case:
Employees of a defunct body were absorbed into a government department. They were initially granted financial benefits under progression schemes. Later, communications sought to deny these benefits by excluding past services rendered prior to absorption, threatening recovery of pensionary benefits.

Findings of Court:
The court determined that the progression schemes aimed to prevent stagnation. Since the government accepted the past service for pension and pay fixation, denying it for progression schemes was inconsistent. Furthermore, recovery of benefits after several years of service and retirement was deemed unjust, harsh, and arbitrary.

Issues: Whether past service rendered in a dissolved entity is admissible for career progression schemes upon absorption into government service, and whether the government can retrospectively recover such benefits after long-term disbursement.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the state considers past service valid for pension and pay fixation, it is unreasonable to exclude it for career progression, especially when the absorption was necessitated by the closure of the prior entity. Additionally, recovery after superannuation, when payments were made for a long duration without challenge, is barred by principles of equity.

Result: Petition allowed; respondents directed to finalize pensionary benefits without recovery.

Table of Content
1. factual background of absorption from asmidc to irrigation department. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
2. preliminary judicial scrutiny of claims and non-interference with specific communications. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 12)
3. arguments concerning counting past corporate service for acp/macp eligibility benefits. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21)
4. judicial assessment of administrative schemes and past service calculation history. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25)
5. past service in absorbed organizations counts for career progression and recovery is prohibited. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32)
6. granting pension release and prohibiting recovery of prior financial benefits. (Para 33 , 34 , 35)

JUDGMENT :

RAJESH MAZUMDAR, J.

This writ petition was heard on 30.01.2026, 24.02.2026 and was reserved for judgment after the concluding arguments had been advanced on 27.02.2026. Mr. S. Borthakur, learned counsel, appeared for the petitioner, while Mr. B. Gogoi, learned Additional Advocate General, appeared for the State respondents. Mr. R. K. Talukdar, learned Standing Counsel for the Accountant General, appeared for the respondent Nos. 5 and 6, while Mr. N. Upadhyay appeared as the Standing Counsel for the Irrigation Department/respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3.

2. Seven petitioners have joined in this petition with the following prayers:-

“to show cause as to why a writ in the Nature of certiorari and or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction of like nature should not be issued, thereby setting aside and quashing

i) the impugned communication issued under Memo IGN(E)137/2020/44 No. dated 27/06/2022 issued by the Under Secretary (E) to the Government of Assam, Irrigation Department to the Accountant General (A&E) Assam so far as the same relates to refusal to grant pension to the petitioners;

(ii) Clause B(x) of the Notification No.FPC.12/2017/4 dated 06/07/2017 issued by the Finance (PRU) Department, Government of Assam so far as same relates to the present petitioners;

and/or to show cause as to why a writ in the nature of Mandamus and/or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction of like nature should not be issued directing the respondent authority

(i) to release the regular pension alongwith remaining retirement benefits payable to the petitioners against the service rendered by petitioners;

(ii) not to make any recovery from the retirement benefits of the petitioners; call for the records and upon perusal thereof and upon hearing the parties may be pleased to make the Rule absolute and/or may be pleased to pass such further or other order/s as to Your Lordships may seem fit and proper.”

3. The facts, as reflected in the petition, are that the petitioners had been initially appointed in the Assam State Minor Irrigation Development Corporation on different dates. Pursuant to a policy decision, the Corporation was closed in the year 2003, and the services of 262 employees were absorbed into the Irrigation Department under the Government of Assam. As per the notification dated 13.05.2005, which was issued to give effect to the formal absorption of the petitioners, along with others, the absorbed employees would have to sign an undertaking individually regarding their giving up of claim of seniority in the Irrigation Department for the past services rendered under the Corporation before joining the Irrigation Department, and that no equalization of pay would be entertained with the employees of the Irrigation Department. The petitioners thereafter joined their services in the Irrigation Department.

4. The Government of Assam was pleased to notify the Assured Career Progression Scheme for the State Government Employees by notification dated 25.11.2011. One of the conditions enumerated at Clause 5 (XXX) in the aforesaid Career Progression Scheme was to the effect that the past services rendered by an employee in another state government/statutory body or autonomous body or public sector organization or SLPE before