WP(C)/567/2025 of Joi Angu Vs The State of AP and 3 Ors on 11 August 2026

ORDER

Date : 12.08.2026

Heard Mr. Tadup Tana Tara, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. Gamken Bam, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Subu Tapin, learned Senior Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the deduction Order No. PHED-I/WZ/361/2022 dated 02.07.2025 issued by the Chief Engineer (W/Z), Public Health Engineering and Water Supply Department (hereinafter referred to as the “PHE & WSD”), Itanagar, whereby an amount of Rs. 11,71,374/- (Rupees Eleven Lakh Seventy One Thousand Three Hundred Seventy Four only) was directed to be deducted from the cash equivalent to leave salary payable to the petitioner, on the recommendation of the Director of Audit and Pension, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Naharlagun.

3. Mr. Tara, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, submits that the issue involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the judgment and order dated 16.06.2025 passed by the coordinate bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 386/2024. He submits that the facts and circumstances of the present case are similar to those considered in the said writ petition and that the difference is only with regard to the dates and the amount involved. He, therefore, submits that the present writ petition may also be disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.

4. Mr. Tapin, learned Senior Government Advocate appearing for the state respondents, fairly submits that he has no objection to the prayer made by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner.

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the records, it appears that the issue involved in the present writ petition is covered by the judgment and order dated 16.06.2025 passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 386/2024 (Tamuli Takoh v. The state of AP & Ors).

6. In the said case, the Coordinate Bench of this Court considered the legality of recovery of alleged excess payment from an employee who was due to retire within one year of the order of recovery. The Court, after considering the Office Memorandum dated 02.03.2016 issued by the Department of Personnel and Training and the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih(White Washer), reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334, held that such recovery was impermissible in the facts and circumstances of that case.

7. In the present case also, the petitioner has raised the following grounds for interference with the impugned order, which were also considered by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the earlier case: -

(i) . The PHE & WSD of Government of Arunachal Pradesh had adopted the CPWD Manual vide order dated PHE/Sectt-15/97/237-46, dated 19.07.2000. Nowhere in the said order the requirement of passing of departmental examination by the Executive Engineer is mentioned.

(ii) . As per a letter dated 05.08.2021, issued by the Assistant Auditor for Director of Audit and Pension, passing departmental accounts examination for AE/EE had been made mandatory w.e.f. 10.08.2001 vide order No. RWD/ Sectt./11/2000.

(iii) . The petitioner was promoted as Executive Engineer on 27.12.2005, pursuant to the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC).

(iv) . In case of one Chief Engineer, namely Tagong Ketan of PHE & WS, it was stated that exemption from passing the departmental accounts examination was granted and the present petitioner is also similarly situated and as such he cannot be denied the benefit.

(v) . In view of the Govt. Order dated 21.01.2019, No. AR123/2018, there is provision for exemption from passing departmental accounts examination by those officers who has reached 57 years, and the present petitioner had already attained the age of 57 years, when the respondent authority had communicated him about the requirement.

(vi) . The petitioner was due to retire on 28.02.2026 when the impugned order dated 02.07.2025 was issued and he had retired on superannuation on 28.02.2026. The alleged excess payment relates to the period from 01.04.2002 to 03.07.2006 and 01.07.2006 to 18.12.2016. As such in view of the ratio laid down in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra), and in view of the Office Memorandum dated 02.03.2016, issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions Department of Personnel & Training, in point No. (ii) Recovery from retired employees, or employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery, the respondent authority is not entitled to recover the amount.

8. The learned Senior Government Advocate has fairly conceded to the contentions made by the petitioner and had not pointed-out any fact distinguishable from the judgment and order dated 16.06.2025 passed in W.P.(C) No. 386/2024 or circumstance which would require this Court to take a different view in the present case. Rather, he has fairly submitted that he has no objection if the present writ petition is disposed of in terms of the earlier judgment.

9. In view of the above and considering that the present case is squarely covered by the judgment and order dated 16.06.2025 passed in W.P.(C) No. 386/2024, this writ petition is also allowed in terms of the said judgment.

10. Accordingly, the impugned Order No. PHED-I/WZ/301/2022 dated 02.07.2025 issued by the Chief Engineer (W/Z), PHE & WSD, Itanagar, whereby, an amount of Rs. 11,71,374/- was directed to be deducted from the cash equivalent to leave salary payable to the petitioner, is hereby set aside and quashed.

11. The respondent authorities are directed to release the aforesaid deducted amount of Rs. 11,71,374/- to the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

12. In the event of failure to release the aforesaid amount within the stipulated period, the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of expiry of the said period of six weeks until payment.

13. The petitioner shall obtain a certified copy of this order and place the same before the respondent authorities.

14. The parties shall bear their own costs.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant