[1] Heard learned counsel of both sides.

[2] The petitioner joined the service as LDC on 10.06.1998 and on completion of 10 years of service he was granted the benefit of CAS-I w.e.f. 10.06.2008. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of UDC on 20.01.2014. Subsequently, on completion of 17 years of service again he was granted the benefit of ACP-II w.e.f. 10.06.2015. He went on superannuation on 31.01.2026.

[3] According to the State-respondents, when the petitioner was promoted as UDC in the year 2014, there was no scope for extending the benefit of ACP-II to him in the year 2015. On the other hand, it is the grievance of the petitioner that on completion of 25 years of service, without any further promotion, he was entitled to get the benefit of MACP-III, which was not provided to him. His last basic pay, according to the State-respondents, would be Rs.52,200/- after withdrawing the benefit of ACP-II, whereas the Office of the Accountant General, issued the PPO, showing his basic pay as Rs.53,800/-.

[4] Meanwhile, the Head of Office & DDO, Fatikroy Class-XII School issued the letter dated 19.02.2026 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition) to the petitioner, asking him to submit one “No Objection” regarding recovery of Rs.7,01,354/- on account of excess payment made to the petitioner. It is also reflected in the said letter that the Office of the Accountant General issued a communication bearing No.Pen-1/Adv.Case/SD/PR-128/2025-26/22787 dated 15.10.2025, whereby re-fixation of the pay of the petitioner was requested for. Now, challenging the aforesaid recovery order and also praying for granting of the benefit of MACP-III, the present writ petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs:

               “i. Issue Notice upon the Respondents,

               ii. Call for the relevant records,

               iii. Issue Rule calling upon the Respondent to show cause as to why the letter dated 19.02.2026 whereby the Respondents have provided that the sum of Rs.7,01,354/- shall be recovered from the leave salary or other admissible retiral benefits of the Petitioner shall not be set aside and quashed.

               AND

               Issue Rule calling upon the Respondent to show cause as to why the impugned letter dated 19.02.2026 and the action of recovery of the Respondents shall not be held to be illegal and set aside and quashed.

               AND

               Issue Rule calling upon the Respondent to show cause as to why the last pay of the Petitioner shall not be refixed upon granting the Petitioner the benefit of MACP-3 from the date of completion of 25 years of service and release the retiral benefits and pension of the Petitioner on such refixed and re-determined last pay without any recovery.

               AND

               Issue Rule calling upon the Respondent to show cause as to why a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ shall not be issued mandating the Respondents to release the pensionary benefits and other retiral benefits of the Petitioner without insisting on any no objection for recovery to be submitted by the Petitioner.

               iv. And after hearing the parties, be pleased to make the rule absolute.

               AND

               In the interim, be pleased to direct the Respondents to release all retiral benefits of the Petitioner including the benefit of pension expect the leave salary till disposal of the connected writ petition.

               AND/OR

               Pass any other order/orders as deemed fit and proper.

               AND

               For this act of kindness your humble Petitioner as in duty bound shall ever remain grateful.”

[5] Mr. Arijit Bhaumik, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner was a Group-C employee and the wrong fixation of the pay of the petitioner, if any, was not done due to any sort of misrepresentation or wrong representation made by him. Therefore, such recovery is not permissible. Learned counsel also submits that the re-fixation of the pay of the petitioner has been made by the State-respondents after withdrawing the benefit of ACP-II, which was granted to the petitioner on 10.06.2015, but on the other hand, they have not granted the benefit of MACP-III to him and ultimately reduced his last pay from Rs.53,800/- to Rs.52,200/-, which according to Mr. Bhaumik, learned counsel, is illegal and erroneous. Mr. Bhaumik, learned counsel, however, submits that the petitioner is not claiming any benefit of ACP-II but he is entitled to be granted the benefit of MACP-III.

[6] Mr. Pradyumna Gautam, learned senior G.A. for the State-respondents, referring to the counter-affidavit, submits that when in the year 2014 the benefit of promotion was granted to the petitioner, he was not entitled to get the benefit of ACP-II and, therefore, the said benefit was rightly withdrawn by the department.

[7] Mr. Debalay Bhattacharya, learned senior counsel for the respondent-Accountant General, submits that though the PPO (Annexure-A of the I.A. No.02 of 2026) was issued by re-fixing the pay of the petitioner, the said PPO was subsequently withdrawn by communication dated 07.05.2026 issued by the Senior Accounts Officer, Office of the Accountant General, to the Treasury Officer, Kailashahar, Unakoti (Annexure-B of the I.A. No.02 of 2026). Mr. Bhattacharya, learned senior counsel, further submits that after the withdrawal of the said PPO from the Office of the Accountant General, a request was made to the parent department of the petitioner to re-submit the pension proposal by re-fixing the last basic pay of the petitioner at the earliest, after making the necessary correction, as matter is required to be settled expeditiously but till date no response has been received from the State-respondents by them.

[8] The Court has considered the submissions of both sides. So far as the recovery of excess amount is concerned, the law is already settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and others vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others, (2015) 4 SCC 334, wherein at paragraph No.18 the followings are held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court:

               “18. It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship which would govern employees on the issue of recovery, where payments have mistakenly been made by the employer, in excess of their entitlement. Be that as it may, based on the decisions referred to hereinabove, we may, as a ready reference, summarise the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law:

               (i) Recovery from the employees belonging to Class III and Class IV service (or Group C and Group D service).

               (ii) Recovery from the retired employees, or the employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery.

               (iii) Recovery from the employees, when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery is issued.

               (iv) Recovery in cases where an employee has wrongfully been required to discharge duties of a higher post, and has been paid accordingly, even though he should have rightfully been required to work against an inferior post.

               (v) In any other case, where the court arrives at the conclusion, that recovery if made from the employee, would be iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary to such an extent, as would far outweigh the equitable balance of the employer’s right to recover.”

[9] In the instant case, the petitioner was a Group-C employee and, as it appears, the allegation of overdrawal relates from the year 2015, when the benefit of ACP-II was granted wrongly to him, which is beyond the period of five years. The petitioner had no contribution in the matter of such alleged wrong fixation. Considering thus, the recovery of any amount on the ground of overdrawal due to any wrong fixation is not permissible at law.

[10] Accordingly, the letter dated 19.02.2026 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition) is quashed. It is directed that the respondents will not make any endeavour to recover any amount from the petitioner on the ground of such wrong fixation in future. So far the re-fixation of the last basic pay of the petitioner is concerned, the respondents are directed to re-fix the same afresh after hearing the petitioner and also taking into consideration of the claim of the petitioner of granting the benefit of MACP-III to him, within a period of 2(two) months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.

[11] The respondents shall release the pension and benefits of gratuity, leave salary and commutation of pension, etc., with all arrears, if any, within 2(two) weeks thereafter.

[12] The respondents are also directed to release the amount payable to the petitioner under the GPF within 2(two) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment along with interest @ 7% per annum computing from the date when it fell due till the payment is made, if the same is already not paid.

[13] With the above observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.

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