Patna High Court
Jitendra SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- AJIT KUMAR
Holding
The order dated 27.02.2025 directing recovery from the petitioner’s gratuity and pension is quashed.
Summary
The petitioner, a retired employee, challenged a letter dated 27.02.2025 that ordered the withholding of Rs. 602,768 from his gratuity and pension on the ground of alleged pay anomalies. He argued that the recovery was unlawful because the excess payments spanned more than five years, he had no misrepresentation, and a prior stay order dated 09.02.2024 barred any deduction. The State contended that the petitioner was overpaid due to an erroneous pay fixation and that the finance department’s circular mandated recovery. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih, the court held that recovery from retired employees for excess payments exceeding five years is impermissible. Consequently, the court quashed the impugned order and allowed the writ petition, directing payment of the full gratuity and pension with interest.
Issues considered
- Whether the order directing recovery of Rs. 602,768 from the petitioner’s gratuity and pension is valid in view of the principles prohibiting recovery from retired employees for excess payments exceeding five years.
- Whether the stay order dated 09.02.2024 bars the recovery of the alleged overpaid amount.
- Whether the petitioner’s pay fixation, though later found anomalous, can be recovered in the absence of any misrepresentation by him.
- Whether the precedent set in State of Punjab & Ors. v. Rafiq Masih (2015) 4 SCC 334 applies to the present case.
Subjects
- pay fixation
- gratuity
- pension
- excess payment recovery
- retired employee
- stay order
- certiorari
- writ petition
- State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13011 of 2025
======================================================
Jitendra Singh Son of Ram Chandra Singh, Resident of Mohalla-Sherpur,
Gandak Colony, Police Station Sadar, District-Muzaffarpur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Water Resources
Department, Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Chief Engineer, Mechanical, Water Resources Department, Bihar, Patna.
4. The Superintending Engineer, Irrigation Mechanical Circle, Muzaffarpur.
5. The Executive Engineer, Mechanical, Irrigation Mechanical Division,
Muzaffarpur.
6. The Treasury Officer, Muzaffarpur.
7. The Accountant General, Bihar, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Sanjeev Kumar Singh
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Government Pleader (10)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 31-01-2026
In the instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the
following relief(s):-
“That the present writ application is
being filed on behalf of the petitioner above
named for issuance of appropriate writ/writs,
order/orders in the nature of certiorari for
quashing part of order contained in letter no.
205 dated 27.02.2025 issued by respondent
no.5, whereby direction has been given to
withhold amount of Rs. 602768/- from post
retirement benefits i.e. gratuity amount and
pension amount on non est ground that the
case related to pay anamoly is pending for
consideration before this Hon'ble Court,
without appreciating the fact that this Hon'ble
Court vide order dated 09.02.2024 has already
Patna High Court CWJC No.13011 of 2025 dt.31-01-2026
2/5
stayed the recovery from the salary of the
petitioner. In consequent thereof, the petitioner
further prays for direction to make payment of
entire gratuity amount as well as pension for
the period from February, 2025 to May, 2025
with admissible statutory interest to the
petitioner and for any other writ/writs,
order/orders which the petitioner may found to
be entitled in the facts and circumstances of
the case.”
2. Counsel for the petitioner by referring to the order as
contained in Letter No. 205 dated 27.02.2025, submits that on the
basis of certain anomalies in the pay fixation, the amount to the
tune of Rs. 6,02,768/- has been quantified for recovery but before
quantifying such amounts, no such proceedings known to the
service jurisprudence, is said to have ever been adopted, and
despite there being no misrepresentation on behalf of this
petitioner, such amounts have been directed to be recovered from
this petitioner after his retirement.
3. It is next submitted that anomalies in the pay fixation,
which is being shown for the purpose of making recovery, starts
from the period 2016 till the date of retirement on 31.01.2025. The
recovery cannot be made, if there is no representation, and as also
from the persons, who are low paid, especially Class-IV and Class-
III employees. It is the case of the petitioner that in view of the
judgment rendered in the case of State of Punjab and others vs.
Rafiq Masih White Washer & Ors. reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334,
Patna High Court CWJC No.13011 of 2025 dt.31-01-2026
3/5
the recovery is impermissible when excess payment has been
made for a period in excess of five years. The relevant para of the
aforesaid judgement is reproduced as under:-
“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.”
4. It is next submitted that there was no
misrepresentation on his behalf, for getting such pay fixation done
in his favour, rather it was fixed on the basis of the pay scale,
Patna High Court CWJC No.13011 of 2025 dt.31-01-2026
4/5
which was approved by the Department of Finance, and therefore,
the recovery is wholly unsustainable in law.
5. On the other hand, counsel representing the State
submits that the petitioner was not entitled to such pay scale still,
such benefits were granted to this petitioner, which on finding such
anomalies in pay fixation, the authorities, in the light of the
Government Circular issued through the Department of Finance,
were legally obliged to take decisions for fresh pay fixation, and
owing to such fixation, the amounts which were paid in excess, the
recovery has been directed vide the impugned order dated
27.02.2025 as contained in Letter No. 205.
6. Counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that for
wrong fixation, there is already a writ pending vide CWJC No.
9655 of 2023 (Jitendra Singh vs. State of Bihar & Ors.), and this
Court has already stayed the recovery vide order dated 09.02.2024.
Therefore, the authorities have not recovered the amount in
question, which forms part of the impugned order as contained in
Annexure-P/6.
7. Considering the fact that the amount in question,
which is said to have been quantified for recovery, was paid to this
petitioner, as per the pay fixation done and not because of his
misrepresentation, and further, the salary was paid pursuant to the
Patna High Court CWJC No.13011 of 2025 dt.31-01-2026
5/5
pay scale allowed by the Department of Finance, which
subsequently was modified based on the
recommendation/resolution of the Finance Department, and owing
to such modification, any revision in pay scale made with regard to
this petitioner, shall not automatically vest an authority to the
employer, in absence of any misrepresentation by the employee in
question, to make recovery of the amount paid in excess for a
period paid in excess of five years, and accordingly, the order
dated 27.02.2025 is quashed.
8. Consequently, the instant writ petition stands allowed.
(Ajit Kumar, J)
abhishekkr/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 09.02.2026
Transmission Date NA
Checking your session…