PARITOSH CHANDRA GHOSH Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard SK Ghosh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. NM Sarma, learned counsel for the respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 being the authorities under the Secondary Education Department of the Government of Assam, Mr. Girin Pegu, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 being the Director of Pension, Assam and Mr. A Chaliha, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5 being the authorities under the Finance Department of the Government of Assam. Considering the nature of the order proposed to be passed, notice not required to be issued to respondent No. 6 being the Principal of I.N Academy H.S School, Bilasipara in the Dhubri district.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the respondent No. 6 school on 14.05.1985 in the intermediate scale of pay of Rs. 520-920/- per month. Subsequently, the petitioner was up-graded to Assistant Teacher in the graduate scale of pay which is Rs. 1375 to Rs. 3375/- per month on 30.12.1993. In the Service Book of the petitioner, there is an entry countersigned by the Inspector of Schools, Dhubri district, by referring to certain order of the I/S No. PCB/Fix/98(1)/3861-69 dated 17.08.2004 communicated vide DS Ess Letter No. JB-Est/ZSE/cc/88/2002/51 dated 15.03.2004 and Finance Department U/O. No. FPC/35/2004 dated 27.02.2004 and Govt. Letter No. B(3) S-68/2004/18 dated 27.02.2004, whereby it was provided that the increment of the petitioner in the revised scale of pay would become effective from the first of May of that given year. The petitioner continued with his service till his date of superannuation and he retired on 30.05.2020. In this writ petition, the petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 31.03.2021 of the Finance and Accounts Officer in the office of the Director of Pension, Assam, by which it was provided as under:- 'As the incumbent was upgraded to Graduate scale on 10/12/1993 with DNI on 01/12/1994 the DNI cannot be changed back to May for revision of pay from 1/1/1996 & his pay may be regulated accordingly. Further, his pay on 1/1/2006 should be fixed at the stage of Rs. 12480/- instead of Rs. 12800/-. Excess drawal may be assessed with due & drawn statement. However, HOO may move to the competent authority to waive recovery in terms of Para 8 of Govt. OM No. Fin (EC-III) 1808/2018/2 dated 14/06/2019.'

(3.) A reading of the order of the Finance and Accounts Officer gives the indication that the pay of the petitioner as on 01.01.2006 ought to have been Rs. 12480/- and not Rs. 12800/-. Accordingly, the Finance and Accounts officer was of the view that there was some excess drawl by the petitioner and by taking such view, the process for paying regular pension to the petitioner had not been carried forward any further.