WP(C) 1062/2009 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BK SHARMA Heard Mr. SK N Mahammad, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Ms. R Cha kraborty, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam. Heard also Mr. U K Goswami, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department. The petitioner, who was working as Assistant Teacher of Pub Barkhetri High Schoo l, retired from service, on 30-11-1998, on attaining the age of superannuation, is aggrieved by the decision of the authority to deduct the amount pertaining to the extended pay scale, granted to him in the year 1989, while he was in servic e. It is an admitted position that the petitioner was not put to any notice. In the affidavit-in-opposition, filed by the Director, Secondary Education, it has been stated that the pension case of the petitioner was finalized by order, date d 05-02-2004, by deducting an amount of Rs. 1,61,768/-, which was drawn in exces s due to the extended pay scale provided to the petitioner. The petitioner was provided with the extended pay scale way back in the year 198 9 with effect from 1982 and during his entire service career he enjoyed the said benefit. There was no occasion, on the part of the respondents to point out any illegality and/or irregularity in granting the petitioner, the extended pay sca le. Now, after so many years of retirement, the respondents cannot deduct the be nefit, which the petitioner has already enjoyed and that too without providing h im with any kind of opportunity of being heard. Mr. Mahammad, learned counsel fo r the petitioner submits that the amount involved, has already been deducted fro m the gratuity and pentionary benefit of the petitioner. The Director of Pension has not filed any affidavit resisting the writ petition, however, from the affidavit-in-opposition of the Director of Secondary Educatio n, it appears that the Director of Pension took the decision to deduct the amoun t, which the petitioner had drawn on account of grant of extended pay scale. Suc h unilateral decision of the Director of Pension cannot be sustained. For all the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is allowed directing the respon dents to refund the amount already recovered from the petitioner. In other words , the petitioner is entitled to pension and all the pensionary and other retrial benefits on the basis of the extended pay scale, which was provided to him in h is service career in the year 1989. The writ petition is disposed of in terms of the above observations and directio ns.