[1] Heard Ld. Counsel Dr. Mihirlal Roy led by Ld. Sr. Counsel Mr. P.Roy Barman, for the petitioner.

[2] Ld. Addl.GA, Mr. Dipankar Sarma appears and accepts notice for respondent nos.1 to 4. Ld. Counsel Mr. A. Chakraborty appears and accepts notice for respondent nos.5 and 6.

[3] It is submitted from the side of petitioner that the petitioner went on superannuation on 31.03.2022 as Jr. Engineer, (Mech), Grade-I from the Department of Agriculture and Farmers’ Welfare, Government of Tripura. During his service he was granted the benefit of CAS-I and CAS-II respectively w.e.f. 25.02.1991 and 25.02.1999. He was also given benefit of ACP-III on completion of 25 years of service w.e.f. 25.02.2018. But after his retirement, from the office of Accountant General, a letter was issued to the Superintendent of Agriculture, Bishalgarh Agri Subdivision, Sepahijala Dist. Tripura on 12.10.2022 stating that there was some anomaly in the pay fixation of the petitioner and therefore his last pay would be Rs.1,10,300/- instead of Rs.1,17,000/-. It was also requested to the Superintendent of Agriculture, Bishalgarh to examine the matter and to re-fix the pay of the petitioner accordingly.

[4] The petitioner, thereafter, submitted a representation on 15.11.2022 to the respondent no.3 i.e. Director, Department of Agriculture and Farmers’ Welfare, Government of Tripura requesting not to recover any amount from him and to release the remaining Gratuity amount and commuted value of pension, but, there was no favourable response to the said representation from the side of respondent no.3.

[5] Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred WP(C) No.1097 of 2022 which was dismissed by a coordinate Bench of this Court on 07.03.2024.

[6] Against the same, the petitioner preferred WA No.37 of 2024 and the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 29.04.2024 allowed the appeal with the following directions:

               [9] We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and taken note of the relevant materials from record. We have also gone through the impugned judgment. The relevant facts referred in the foregoing part of this order do not need any reiteration. It has been submitted at the outset on behalf of the petitioner that if the CAS-II benefits were conferred from a date anterior to the due date, petitioner does not have any objection to re-fixation of his last pay as proposed by the Accountant General. However, recovery without any due notice after retirement and that too for benefits conferred not on account of any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the petitioner for a period relating to more than 22 years back should not be done without an opportunity to the petitioner to show-cause. We are also in agreement with the submission that in case the department chooses to recover the amount paid in excess due to conferment of CAS-II benefits from a date i.e. 01.01.1999 anterior to the due date i.e. 25.02.1999 the competent authority under the department should issue a show-cause notice to the petitioner before the proposed recovery. The petitioner shall be allowed opportunity to submit his reply with all supporting documents and submissions. The competent authority on consideration of reply of the petitioner would thereafter proceed to take a decision, in accordance with law, within a reasonable time. It appears that the pension of the petitioner at the reduced scale of Rs.1,10,300/- has already been released but gratuity benefits have been withheld awaiting a response from the department. In those circumstances, the competent authority of the department would take an early decision in the matter, in accordance with law.

               [10] In the light of discussions and observations made hereinabove, the impugned judgment dated 07.03.2024 passed in WP(C) No.1097 of 2022 is set aside. The writ appeal is disposed of in the manner and to the extent indicated above......................”

               A copy of the judgment was communicated to the respondents by the petitioner vide letter dtd. 07.05.2024(Annexure-7).

[7] It is also the grievance of the petitioner that without complying the directions of the Division Bench and without issuing any show cause notice, the Superintendent of Agriculture, Bishalgarh issued a letter dated 25.06.2024 to the petitioner asking him to refund the excess payment received by him while he was in service.

[8] Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed contempt petition being No. Cont. Cas.(C) No.30 of 2025 which was disposed of by the Division Bench on 26.09.2025 by quashing the said letter dated 25.06.2024.

[9] Meanwhile, the Superintendent of Agriculture, Bishalgarh i.e respondent no.4 issued a show cause notice (Annexure-12) dtd.17.04.2025 to the petitioner in terms of the judgment of the Division Bench passed in case No. WA 37 of 2024 asking him to show cause as to why the excess amount shall not be recovered, and against the same, the petitioner submitted his reply on 12.11.2025(Annexure-14).

[10] As per the judgment of the Division Bench in said WA 37 of 2024, direction was given to the competent authority to take a decision in accordance with law within a reasonable time after consideration of the reply of the petitioner against said show cause notice. Further direction was given to the competent authority of the Department to take an early decision in this matter in accordance with law as gratuity benefits were already withheld by them.

[11] Ld. Counsel of the petitioner, Dr. Mihirlal Roy submits that despite such specific directions given by the Division Bench, no step has yet been taken by the respondents to decide the matter after taking into consideration the reply of the petitioner submitted against said show cause notice and such procrastination on the part of the Department is causing financial loss to the petitioner as the matter of payment of gratuity and the commutation of pension are already withheld by them.

[12] Ld. Counsel further submits that as per decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and others vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others; (2015) 4 SCC 334, the respondents cannot recover any amount as the overdrawal, if any, was made by the Department not for the fault or misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner.

[13] Ld. Counsel of the petitioner also submits that a specific plea citing the said decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been taken in the said show cause reply.

[14] Ld. Counsel of the petitioner as well as Ld. Addl.GA, Mr. Dipankar Sarma submits that they have no objection if the case is disposed of at this stage with a direction to the Department to dispose of the matter in a time bound manner.

[15] Considered the submissions.

[16] As it appears, as per the decision of the Division Bench of this Court the said WA 37 of 2024, it is incumbent upon the respondents to decide the matter at the earliest and to take a reasoned decision in accordance with law and to pass necessary order thereupon. But same has not been done yet. Moreover, for dragging this matter, the petitioner is not being able to receive the benefits of gratuity and commutations of pension.

[17] Therefore, the respondents are directed to take a reasoned decision in terms of said judgment passed by the Division Bench in WA 37 of 2024 and also in accordance with law and taking note of the grounds stated in the show cause reply, within a period of 2 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order and thereafter to communicate the same to the petitioner.

[18] Liberty is also given to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum again if any further grievances persist to him against the decision of the respondents.

[19] With such observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of.

[20] Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.