WP(C) 2180/2007 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE IA ANSARI The petitioner joined Nayeralga High School, as an Assistant Teacher, on 01-03-1973, on being appointed by the Managing Committee of the said school. Th e school received ad hoc grant-in-aid with effect from 01-07-1973 and the school was provincialised with effect from 01-02-1985. The post of Assistant Teacher, which the petitioner had been holding, was also sanctioned with effect from the date of provincialisation of the school, i.e., on 01-02-1985. The respondents to ok the view that the petitioner was not entitled to the benefit of extended pay scale in terms of Rule 11 of the ROP Rules, 1983, on the ground that the petitio ner had not completed 15 years of regular service from the date of provincialisa tion of the school, for, according to the respondents, the petitioner shall be t reated to have been regularly appointed only when his post was sanctioned with e ffect from 01-02-1985. The respondents, therefore, sought to recover the amount, which the petitioner had drawn, on the basis of an understanding that the petit ioner was not entitled to receive the extended pay scale with effect from 01-07- 1988. In terms of the decision, so taken, an order was issued, on 27-02-2007, by the respondent No. 5, namely, Inspector of Schools, Dhubri, whereby, while gran ting sanction for payment of pension, a direction was also given for recovery of the alleged excess drawl of money by the petitioner. It is this direction for r ecovery, which stands impugned in the present writ petition made under Article 2 26 of the Constitution of India. Heard Mr. ATM Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. SK Da s, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department. Heard also Mr. C Baruah, lear ned counsel for the respondent No. 2. The benefit of extended pay scale is, admittedly, covered by Rule 11 of the ROP Rules, 1983. This Rule provides that a person would become entitled to receive e xtended pay scale on completion of 15 years of service and the word ’service’, f or this purpose, would mean all service rendered in the particular post/service, be it officiating/substantive or in probationary capacity. As the petitioner’s service was provincialised and sanctioned with effect from 0 1-02-1985, it is not incorrect to contend that at the time, when the petitioner retired, he had not really completed 15 years of service from the date, when his post stood sanctioned. The problem, however, arose because of the fact that the extended pay scale had been granted to the petitioner before he retired on supe rannuation and it is after his retirement that, with the help of the impugned or der, the respondents, now, seek to recover the amount, which the petitioner had drawn. In the fact situation, as in the present case, this High Court, in Safior Rahman & Ors. -vs- State of Assam & Ors, reported in 2007 (2) GLT 308, held tha t the respondents are not entitled to recover the amount, particularly, because there is provision for relaxation of rules if operation of any of the rules caus es undue hardship in any particular case. When the respondents had already given the benefit of extended pay scale to the petitioner, treating his service to ha ve been regularized with effect from the date of his appointment, i.e., on 01-07 -1973, though the petitioner can be regularly appointed only with effect from 01 -02-1985, it would, now, cause hardship to the petitioner if recovery is made fr om his pension and pensionary benefits, particularly, when it is not contended b y the respondents that the petitioner had fraudulently or dishonestly obtained t he benefit of extended pay scale and when the provisions for regularization in t he rules, as indicated hereinbefore, exists.The relevant observations made, in t his regard, in Safior Rahman (supra), read as under: 17. The provision in Rule 11 is a beneficial provision to mitigate the hardship faced by the Govt. employees in view of the stagnation. Rule 3 of the Rules pro vides for relaxation of rules in case of operation of any particular case. Takin g into account all these together coupled with the fact that the petitioners wer e granted with the benefit of extended scale of pay by the respondents of their own. I am of the considered opinion that the proposed action and/or action alrea dy taken by the respondents towards denying the said benefit and that too at a b elated stage will be opposed to the principles of justice and equity, apart from the fact that the said action is in complete violation of the principles of nat ural justice. Having considered the matter in its entirety, I see no reason to take a view dif ferent from the one, which has been taken in Safior Rahman (supra). Considering, therefore, the matter in its entirety and in the interest of justic e, the impugned order, dated 27-02-2007, is hereby set aside and quashed. The re spondents are hereby directed not to recover any amount, which the petitioner mi ght have drawn as a result of having been granted the benefit of extended pay sc ale. The respondents are hereby further directed to make, without such deduction and/or recovery, as indicated hereinbefore, pension available to the petitioner . With the above observations and directions, this writ petition shall stand dispo sed of. No order as to costs.