NAMAR ALI BARBHUIYA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. JUNM Laskar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Mr. P.K. Borah, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the Elementary Education Department, Mr. S.R. Baruah, the learned Standing Counsel appears on behalf of the Director of Pension, Mr. R. Borpujari, the learned Standing Counsel appears on behalf of the Finance Department and Mr. R. Dhar, the learned Standing Counsel appears on behalf of the Accountant General (A and E) Assam.

(2.) The case of the petitioner herein is that the petitioner was initially appointed on 1/1/1974 as an Assistant Teacher and posted at R.C. M.E. Madrassa Hatirhar, District -Cachar, Assam. Thereupon the service of the petitioner was confirmed vide an order dtd. 17/10/1977 as recorded in the order dtd. 30/7/2000. Thereupon the petitioner retired from service on 29/2/2016. The pension papers of the petitioner were sent to the Office of the Director of Pension wherein on account of a deficiency as pointed out by the Office of the Director of Pension on 10/7/2019 there was excess drawal on account of a wrong fixation of pay. The deficiency as stated in the communication dtd. 10/7/2019 being relevant is quoted herein under :

(3.) It appears from the above quoted portion of the communication dtd. 10/7/2019 that the pay of the petitioner on 1/1/1981 ought to have been fixed at Rs.537.00, instead it was fixed at Rs.573.00 . Subsequently the pay of the petitioner was worked out on the basis of Rs.573.00 which resulted in an excess amount which the petitioner received during his service. It is further apparent from a communication produced during the course of hearing mentioned that the total excess amount to which the petitioner has received on account of the wrong fixation of pay was Rs.4,09,993.00 and in that view of the matter unless the Finance Department waives the said amount, the entitlement of petitioner towards pension and pensionery benefits have been withheld. It was duly noted in the order dtd. 3/4/2023 by this Court that there is no allegation of misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the petitioner which had resulted in wrong fixation of his pay. This observation made by this Court on 3/4/2023 is based upon a reading of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No. 3 i.e. the Director of Elementary Education.