Gauhati High Court
WP(C)/4675/2022 of SARAT CH. DUTTA Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS on 3 February 2026
GAHC010140182022 2026:GAU-AS:1439 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/4675/2022 SARAT CH. DUTTA S/O- LATE BAPURAM DUTTA, R/O- VILL.- MELENG TINIKUNIA GAON, P.O. LAHDOIGARH, P.S. TEOK, DIST. JORHAT, PIN- 785700. VERSUS THE STATE
GAHC010140182022
2026:GAU-AS:1439
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/4675/2022
SARAT CH. DUTTA
S/O- LATE BAPURAM DUTTA, R/O- VILL.- MELENG TINIKUNIA GAON, P.O.
LAHDOIGARH, P.S. TEOK, DIST. JORHAT, PIN- 785700.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT., DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6.
2:THE COMMISSIONER
PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
JURIPAR
PANJABARI
GUWAHATI-781037.
3:THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A AND E)
ASSAM
MAIDAM GAON
BELTOLA
GUWAHATI-781029.
4:THE JOINT DIRECTOR
PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
JURIPAR
GUWAHATI-781037.
5:THE TREASURY OFFICER
JORHAT.
6:THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
KALIAPANI DEVELOPMENT BLOCK
TEOK
JORHAT
ASSAM
7:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-781006
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. D BARUAH, MR. P K BORDOLOI,MR. P G BHAGAWATI
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, P AND R.D., SC, FINANCE,SC, AG
BEFORE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
1
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
04.02.2026 Heard Mr D Baruah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr S Dutta, learned Standing Counsel, P & RD Department, Mr B Chakravarty, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3 and Mr A Chaliha, learned Standing Counsel, appearing for the Finance Department.
2. This writ petition has been filed being aggrieved by the action of the respondent authorities in deciding to hold back the salary and other allowances with arrears drawn during the period from July, 2012 to March, 2016, from his retirement benefits, on the ground that the petitioner had overstayed his period of service for the aforesaid time.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to the fact that the petitioner was born in the year 1952, joined in his service in the year 1983 and as such, he was required to have retired on 31.07.2012. However, due to the lapse on the part of the office of the respondent authorities in issuing the appropriate superannuation order, the petitioner had to continue to serve the Department up to 31.03.2016.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the aforesaid superannuation was effected on him only on his insistence before the respondent Department.
5. It is noticed that the respondents have not filed an affidavit-in-opposition in the matter till date, although notices were issued on 21.07.2022.
6. The orders which have been annexed to the writ petition do not reflect that there was any finding to the effect that the petitioner was in involved in any manner, while overstaying his period of service. In the aforesaid situation, following the law laid down in the case of State of Punjab and Ors. vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Others; reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334, this Court is of the opinion that the respondents would not be entitled to recover the arrear salary or allowances or salaries for the period that he had stayed in service from and beyond 31.06.2012 and up to 31.03.2016. In the earlier order passed by this Court, the respondents were already restrained during the pendency of the writ petition, from recovering the amount of proposed of Rs. 10,000/- from the pension of the petitioner.
7. The earlier interim order is made absolute. The respondents shall not make any recovery from the pension of the petitioner on the ground that he had overstayed in his service from 30.06.2012 to 31.03.2016. Further, if any amount has been recovered from the pensionary benefits of the petitioner on the ground of his having overstayed in his service for the aforesaid period, the same be re-imbursed to the petitioner, within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
8. It is made clear that since the petitioner had overstayed his service on and from 30.06.2012, the respondents would be at liberty to recalculate the pensionary benefits of the petitioner, taking his notional date of superannuation to be 30.06.2012. The pension may accordingly, be adjusted. The respondents would also be at liberty to issue a fresh pension payment order in this regard. Petitioner shall cooperate with the respondents in the aforesaid respect by depositing his pension payment order on demand by the respondent authorities.
9. Writ petition is disposed of.
10. Parties to bear their own cost(s).
JUDGE Comparing Assistant