Facts
The petitioner, an employee of the Assam Power Generation Corporation Ltd. (APGCL), retired on March 31, 2016.
Source reference: p. 2The Revision of Pay (ROP) Rules, 2017, were subsequently implemented with retrospective effect from April 1, 2016, covering retirees.
Source reference: p. 2While the authorities applied the ROP to the petitioner’s pension, they failed to revise his last drawn pay, leading to a lower pension calculation.
Source reference: p. 2Following a series of litigations—including a favorable Single Judge order, its reversal by a Division Bench, and a final restoration by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on December 4, 2025—the Apex Court held that the petitioner was entitled to pay revision for his last drawn pay and subsequent pension re-calculation with 6% interest.
Source reference: p. 3Despite the Supreme Court's verdict, the respondents issued a Demand Notice dated November 11, 2024, seeking recovery of "excess" amounts paid under the ROP Rules.
Source reference: p. 3-4Issues
1. Whether the Demand Notice dated 11.11.2024 for recovery of pensionary benefits is legally sustainable in light of the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment dated 04.12.2025?
Source reference: p. 4Law Applied
The court applied the principle of judicial hierarchy and the finality of Supreme Court judgments under the Constitution of India.
Source reference: no citationThe Supreme Court’s findings in the petitioner’s own case (Special Leave Petition decided on 04.12.2025), which established the legal right of retirees to have their last drawn pay revised under the ROP Rules, 2017, for the purpose of computing pension.
Source reference: p. 3The doctrine of mandamus to prevent authorities from acting in contravention of established legal entitlements.
Source reference: p. 2Reasoning
The court found that the demand notice issued by APGCL was in direct contradiction ("in teeth of") to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
Source reference: p. 4Since the Apex Court had already ruled that the petitioner was entitled to the revised pay and pensionary benefits—and even ordered the payment of arrears with interest—the respondents’ attempt to characterize these payments as "excess" and demand a refund was legally untenable.
Source reference: p. 3-4The respondent’s counsel (Senior Government Advocate) conceded that given the Supreme Court’s judgment, the demand notice could not stand.
Source reference: p. 4Holding
The court held that the petitioner is protected by the Supreme Court’s mandate, thereby prohibiting the respondents from insisting on the reimbursement of the alleged excess amounts.
The Gauhati High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed Demand Notice No. MD/APGCL/PEN/M-16/188/94 dated 11.11.2024.
Source reference: p. 4Original Court PDF
Binod BhagabativsThe Assam Power Generation Corporation Ltd And 2 Ors
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in