Patna High Court
Surendra YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- PARTHA SARTHY
Holding
The recovery orders directing the petitioner to repay salary for the ten‑month excess period are unsustainable and are set aside.
Summary
The petitioner, a former driver in the Collectorate, Chapra, retired on 31 January 2024 after a service of 42 years and 10 months. The respondents issued several memos ordering the recovery of salary paid for an alleged excess service period of ten months, citing a 2019 government decision. The petitioner contended that he was unaware of the correct retirement date, that the excess period resulted from an administrative error, and that recovery from a retired Class‑III employee would be inequitable. The Court examined the Supreme Court’s guidelines in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih, which prohibit recovery from retired employees in such circumstances. Finding the recovery orders arbitrary and unsustainable, the Court set aside all the memos and directed any recovered amounts to be returned to the petitioner. Consequently, the writ application was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether the order directing recovery of salary paid for an alleged excess service period of a retired employee is legally valid.
- Whether recovery of salary from a retired Class‑III/IV employee is permissible under established Supreme Court jurisprudence.
- Whether the recovery orders constitute an arbitrary and inequitable exercise of authority.
Subjects
- retirement
- salary recovery
- excess service period
- civil writ jurisdiction
- employee rights
- Class III service
- equitable relief
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14303 of 2024
======================================================
Surendra Yadav S/O Late Chandradeo Yadav R/O Vill- East Dahiawan
Jagdamba Road, P.S- Nagar, Dist.- Saran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Patna
2. The District Magistrate, Saran at Chapra.
3. The Additional District Magistrate(Establishment), Saran at Chapra
4. The Deputy Collector Establishment, Saran at Chapra.
5. The Block Development Officer, Revelganj, Dist.- Saran.
6. The Accountant General, Bihar, Patna
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pranav Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Rajeev Ranjan No.II, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Kumar Manish, SC-5
Mr. Prashant Kumar, AC to SC-5
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 09-04-2026
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the respondents.
2. The petitioner has filed the instant application for
the following relief(s):
“That this application is directed for
issuance of appropriate writ for quashing the memo
no.693 dated 29.6.2024 and the subsequent memo
no.786 dated 19.7.2024 and memo no.886 dated
17.8.2024 issued by the respondent no.2 and the
respondent no.5 respectively by which the petitioner
have been asked to deposit the salary and other
emoluments which he has been received for the period
of 10 months in excess of the service period rendered
Patna High Court CWJC No.14303 of 2024 dt.09-04-2026
2/8
by him.”
3. The case of the petitioner in brief is that having
been appointed as a Peon in the Collectorate, Chapra in the year
1981, the petitioner worked to the satisfaction of all concerned
and as a result thereof was upgraded as a driver by order dated
11.5.1993 w.e.f. 3.6.1987.
4. It is further case of the petitioner that the office of
the Collector, Saran at Chapra published a list of employees on
2.10.2023 giving their date of superannuation. The name of the
petitioner figured in the said list (Annexure-P/3) at Sl. no.3 and
the petitioner was shown as scheduled to be retiring on
31.1.2024.
5. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner
having retired and on the respondents going through the service
records of the petitioner for preparation of his post retiral dues
that the respondents came out with an order contained in letter
no.817 dated 26.6.2024 impugned herein issued under the
signature of the Establishment Deputy Collector, Saran at
Chapra. As per the said letter, the total service period of the
petitioner having been 42 years and 10 months, in accordance
with the decision contained in letter no.12978 dated 19.9.2019
of the Deputy Secretary, General Administration Department,
Government of Bihar, the petitioner had worked for an excess
Patna High Court CWJC No.14303 of 2024 dt.09-04-2026
3/8
period of 10 months and as such, it was ordered that the amount
paid to the petitioner by way of salary etc. beyond the period of
42 years of service that the petitioner worked be recovered in a
single instalment. It is against this order dated 26.6.2024 that the
petitioner has filed the instant writ application.
6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner
that the petitioner who was working in the capacity of a driver at
the time of his retirement was not aware as to what is his correct
date of retirement. In fact, even as per the respondent’s letter
dated 2.10.2023 issued under the signature of the District
Magistrate, Saran at Chapra, the petitioner was to retire on
31.1.2024 which he retired. The petitioner not being in any
manner at fault for having worked for an excess period of ten
months as stipulated in letter dated 19.9.2019 of the General
Administration Department, Government of Bihar, he cannot be
placed at fault. Further, the salary for the said period has been
paid to the petitioner against the work done by him. Reliance
has been placed by learned counsel for the petitioner on the
judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sahib
Ram vs. State of Haryana and others;[1995 Suppl.(1) SCC 18],
Union of India and others vs. M. Bhaskar and others;[(1996)
4 SCC 416], V. Gangaram vs. Regional Joint Director and
Patna High Court CWJC No.14303 of 2024 dt.09-04-2026
4/8
others; [(1997) 6 SCC 139], Syed Abdul Qadir and others vs.
State of Bihar and others; [(2009) 3 SCC 475] and State of
Punjab and others vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and
others;[(2015) 4 SCC 334]. Learned counsel for the petitioner
lastly submits that so far as the work of the petitioner is
concerned, the respondents were so satisfied with the same that
even subsequent to the petitioner’s retirement, by order
contained in memo no.333 dated 29.2.2024 (Annexure-P/4), the
petitioner was engaged by the respondents for a further period
of one year. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it
is prayed that the order impugned contained in letter dated
26.6.2024 directing for recovery of the amount from the post
retiral dues payable to the petitioner be set aside. Further prayer
is made also to set aside the orders contained in letter dated
19.7.2024 (Annexure-P/7) and letter dated 17.8.2024
(Annexure-P/8) which is a reiteration of the letter dated
26.6.2024 directing for recovery of the salary paid to the
petitioner for the excess period that he is said to have worked.
7. The application is opposed by learned counsel for
the respondents. Learned counsel for the respondents submits
that there is no dispute with respect to the fact that the petitioner
worked for 42 years and 10 months and as such taking steps in
Patna High Court CWJC No.14303 of 2024 dt.09-04-2026
5/8
accordance with the letter dated 19.9.2019 of the General
Administration Department, Government of Bihar (Annexure-
C/1 to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent
nos.2 and 5), order was passed for recovery of the salary paid
for the excess period of ten months. There is no illegality in the
order impugned and no merit in the instant writ application.
8. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the respondents. Perused the material on record.
9. The relevant facts in brief are that the petitioner
who was appointed as a Peon in the Collectorate in the year
1981 was upgraded as a driver by order dated 11.5.1993 w.e.f.
3.6.1987 and started working in the said capacity to the
satisfaction of all concerned. The office of the Collector, Saran
at Chapra published a list of employees on 2.10.2023 giving
their dates of superannuation wherein the name of the petitioner
figured and his date of superannuation had been mentioned as
31.1.2024. The petitioner retired on 31.1.2024.
10. It transpires that the respondents came out with an
order contained in letter no.817 dated 26.6.2024 that the total
service period of the petitioner till 31.1.2024 was 42 years and
10 months and thus as per the letter of the General
Administration Department, the petitioner had worked for an
Patna High Court CWJC No.14303 of 2024 dt.09-04-2026
6/8
excess period of 10 months. As such, the respondents came out
with an order dated 26.6.2024 contained in memo no.693 dated
29.6.2024 directing for recovery of the salary for the period of
10 months. The same was followed by orders of recovery dated
19.7.2024 and 17.8.2024.
11. It may be observed here that Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of State of Punjab and others vs. Rafiq Masih
(White Washer) and others; (2015) 4 SCC 334 held as follows:
“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 herein above, 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
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
Patna High Court CWJC No.14303 of 2024 dt.09-04-2026
7/8
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.”
12. So far as the facts of the instant case is concerned,
even the respondents were not aware with the correct date of
superannuation of the petitioner and it is for this reason that in
the list of employees published on 2.10.2023 from the office of
the Collector, Saran at Chapra, the date of superannuation of the
petitioner was given as 31.1.2024.
13. There is no dispute with respect to the fact that the
petitioner worked to the full satisfaction of the respondents in so
far as even after his superannuation, the petitioner was engaged
for a further period of one year. With the level of education of
the petitioner, who was a driver, he cannot be faulted for having
worked for an excess period of 10 months when the respondents
themselves came out with the list of dates of superannuation,
which according to them was incorrect.
14. In the opinion of this Court, the case of the
petitioner is fully covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble
Patna High Court CWJC No.14303 of 2024 dt.09-04-2026
8/8
Supreme Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra) and the order
of one time recovery of the amount of salary paid for the 10
months of salary of the petitioner is not sustainable.
15. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case,
the order dated 26.6.2024 (Annexure-P/6) contained in memo
no.693 dated 29.6.2024 issued under the signature of the
Establishment Deputy Collector, Saran, Chapra, the order
contained in memo no.786 dated 19.7.2024 (Annexure-P/7)
issued under the signature of the Block Development Officer,
Revelganj, Saran and the order contained in memo no.886 dated
17.8.2024 (Annexure-P/8) issued under the signature of the
Block Development Officer, Revelganj, Saran are all
unsustainable and are hereby set aside.
16. In case any recovery has been made from the
petitioner pursuant to the orders impugned in the instant
application, the same shall be returned to the petitioner
forthwith.
17. The writ application is allowed.
(Partha Sarthy, J)
Saurabh/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 09.04.2026
Transmission Date
Checking your session…