WP(C)/2249/2026 of KUMUD CHANDRA DUTTA Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS on 3 May 2026

ORDER

Date : 04.05.2026

Heard Mr. P. K. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. P. Das, learned Standing Counsel, Secondary Education Department for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3; Mr. P. Saikia, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent Nos. 4 and 5; and Ms. R. M. Baruah, learned Standing Counsel, Finance Department for the respondent No.6. [2.] Having regard to the nature of grievance projected by the petitioner, the writ petition is taken up for disposal at this stage. [3.] The petitioner retired from service on 30.06.2021 as Assistant Teacher from Rangia Higher Secondary School under Kamrup District Circle but despite retiring, he has not been paid his pension till date. According to the petitioner, the Directorate of Pension had raised an objection alleging that the pay of the petitioner as on 01.05.2001 should have been fixed as Rs.4,120/- but instead, he was given Rs.4,480/- and therefore, there is an excess drawal of pay by the petition w.e.f 01.05.2001 till the date of his retirement.

[4.] The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has no role in the computation and fixation of his pay and therefore, respondents cannot seek recovery of the same. He submits that the Principal of the School has calculated the excess payment given to the petitioner to be an amount of Rs.2,40,660.70 and the same has been communicated to the Inspector of Schools, Kamrup District Circle, Amingaon on 09.02.2026. It is therefore for this reason that the petitioner has been deprived of his pension till date. The learned counsel submits that the case of the petitioner is otherwise covered by the decision of the Apex Court rendered in State of Punjab Vs. Rafiq Masih reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334, more particularly, at paragraph No.18 of the said judgment. The learned counsel submits that paragraph No.18 of the said judgment has been abstracted in the writ petition against paragraph-9. [5.] Upon perusal of the contents of the writ petition as well as the decision of the Apex Court in Rafiq Masih (Supra), it only appears that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the said decision. Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondent authorities to process and pay the petitioner his pension without further delay and at any rate within the outer limit of 2(two) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. [6.] With the above observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant