Patna High Court
Amrendra KumarversusThe State Of Bihar and Ors
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- ALOK KUMAR SINHA
Holding
The court held that, following State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih, salary recovery from a Class‑III employee is barred and therefore the recovery order is quashed.
Summary
Amrendra Kumar, a Class‑III Assistant Teacher in Nalanda, was removed from service and an FIR was lodged against him. The State issued an order (No. 42711‑05608 dated 14‑06‑2017) directing his removal and recovery of salary paid during his tenure. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking quashing of the recovery order, relying on the Supreme Court judgment in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih which bars salary recovery from Class‑III employees. The High Court examined the applicability of that precedent and held that the recovery provision is impermissible for Class‑III service personnel. Consequently, the court set aside the recovery portion of the impugned order. The writ petition was allowed to the extent of quashing the salary‑recovery order.
Issues considered
- Whether a salary‑recovery order can be enforced against a Class‑III (Group C) government employee
- Whether the impugned order directing recovery of salary is legally valid
Subjects
- salary recovery
- Class III employee
- public service employment
- writ petition
- quashing order
- Supreme Court precedent
- government teacher
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15366 of 2017
======================================================
Amrendra Kumar Son of Shranti Kumar, Resident of Mohalla- Nehru Nagar
Mainpura, Bishal Hanuman Mandir, Town/Village- Patna, Anchal Patna
Sadar, Patna- 800013.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. The Principal Secretary Education Department Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Director, Primary Education Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
4. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Patna Pramandal, Patna.
5. The District Education Officer, Nalanda.
6. The District Programme Officer Establishment, Nalanda.
7. The District Public Grievances Redressal Officer, Nalanda.
8. The Block Development Officer-cum-member Secretary, Prakhand, Niyojan
Unit, Bind, Nalanda.
9. The Block Education Officer- Bind, Nalanda.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mritunjay Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Ram Ganesh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Prabhat Ranjan Singh, A.C. to AAG-15.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR SINHA
ORAL ORDER
6 12-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel appearing for respondent-State.
2. The petitioner in the present writ application has
prayed for grant of following relief :-
“I. To quash the order containing issued no.
42711-05608 dated 14.06.2017 passed by respondent no.7
by which the respondent no.8 has been directed to lodge
an F.I.R. against the petitioner and to insure his removal
from his service as Prakhand teacher middle school Bind,
district Nalanda and to made recovery of the amount of
salary which has been received by him in service period.
Patna High Court CWJC No.15366 of 2017(6) dt.12-01-2026
2/4
(II) For quashing the order contain in Memo
no.858 dated 12.08.2017 issued by the respondent No.8 by
which the petitioner has been removal from his service as
Prakhand teacher in middle school Bind, District Nalanda
as well as a decision has been taken to recover all amount
of salary which has been received by the petitioner in his
service period with interest. Further, the respondent be
directed to reinstate the petitioner in his service and not to
recover any amount of salary from him which has been
revived by him ins service period.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
already an F.I.R. has been lodged against the petitioner and his
service has already been terminated. He, therefore, submits that
he is confining his relief only to the extent of challenging the
order dated 14.06.2017 by which order has been passed for
recovery of the amount of salary which has been received by the
petitioner during the service period. He relies upon the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of
Punjab and Ors. vs. Rafiq Masih (2015) 4 SCC 334,
paragraph 18 of the said Judgment is quoted hereinbelow for
needful :-
“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
Patna High Court CWJC No.15366 of 2017(6) dt.12-01-2026
3/4
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. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner was a class-III employee duly appointed as Assistant
Teacher, Middle School, Bind in the District of Nalanda.
5. Without commenting of the legality and illegality
of the appointment of the petitioner, this Court deems fit to
dispose of writ application in the light of the law laid down of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of State of
Punjab (supra) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
completely barred recovery of salary from the employees
belonging to Class III service.
6. In such view of the matter the impugned order
dated 14.06.2017 (Annexure-1) is hereby set aside and quashed
to the extent it has ordered for recovery of amount of salary
Patna High Court CWJC No.15366 of 2017(6) dt.12-01-2026
4/4
from the petitioner.
7. This writ application stands allowed to the extent
indicated above.
(Alok Kumar Sinha, J)
sanjeev/-
U
Checking your session…