Patna High Court
Vijay KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- AJIT KUMAR
Holding
The High Court quashed the recovery letters/orders and allowed the writ petition, holding that no recovery shall be made for excess amounts paid to the petitioners.
Summary
Six retired teachers filed a writ petition challenging several letters and orders issued by the State of Bihar that recovered amounts from their death‑cum‑retirement gratuity. They contended that the recoveries violated a prior Patna High Court judgment dated 23 September 2022 in Chandrakant & Ors. v. State of Bihar, which held that excess benefits granted under the ACP/MACP schemes could not be reclaimed. The petitioners also relied on Supreme Court precedents (State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih, 2015 4 SCC 334 and Thomas Daniel v. State of Kerala, 2022 SCC Online SC 536) that barred recovery of amounts already paid. The State argued that the earlier judgment had attained finality and no further relief was warranted. The Court examined the earlier judgments and held that the recovery orders were contrary to law, quashed the letters/orders, and directed that the recovered amounts be refunded with interest. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether the recovery orders issued by the respondents are ultra vires in view of the Patna High Court judgment dated 23 September 2022 in Chandrakant & Ors. v. State of Bihar.
- Whether Supreme Court decisions in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih and Thomas Daniel v. State of Kerala preclude recovery of excess amounts paid to teachers under the ACP/MACP schemes.
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to have the recovery letters/orders quashed and the amounts refunded with penal interest.
Subjects
- gratuity recovery
- ACP scheme
- MACP scheme
- certiorari
- writ petition
- pension revision
- Supreme Court precedent
- public service
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3371 of 2026
======================================================
1. Vijay Kumar Son of late Siya Sharan Prasad Singh, Resident of Village
Boria Dih Ward no.-07, P. S. Samastipur, District - Samastipur.
2. Ejaj Ahmed, son of Abdur Rahim, resident of Mohalla Ward no. 01,
Bardauni 2. P.S Bithan, District - Samastipur.
3. Md. Wokeel Ahmad, son of Late Solim Moayb Yaqub, resident of Village
Dharampur, P. S. Samastipur, District Samastipur.
4. Surendra Razak, son of Late Jungi Baitha, resident of Village Wajitpur, P. S
Ujiyarpur, District Samastipur.
5. Smt. Urmila Kumari Devi, wife of Surendra Razak, resident of Village-
Wajitpur, P.S Ujiyarpur, District - Samastipur.
6. Md. Imam Afzal, Son of Md. Anwarul Haque, resident of Village Ward no.-
02, Rahua P. S. Samastipur, District - Samastipur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Education
Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Additional Chief Secretary, Education Department, Govt. of Bihar,
Patna.
3. The District Magistrate, Samastipur.
4. The District Education Officer, District - Samastipur.
5. The District Programme Officer (Establishment), District-Samastipur.
6. The Accountant General (A and E), Bihar, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shailendra Kumar, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Addl. Advocate General (13)
For the AG : Mr. Arun Kumar Arun, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
2 11-03-2026 In this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for
the following relief:-
“(i) For issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari
to quash the letter no.- 202211101794PO dated-
23.05.2022, letter no.-10/ PEN 030222101285 /
Patna High Court CWJC No.3371 of 2026(2) dt.11-03-2026
2/5
202211101462 PO dated 16.03.2022, letter no.-
202211101711PO dated 02.05.2022, letter no.- 10/PEN
060722102749 / 202211102205PO dated-27.08.2022,
letter no. 202211102152PO dated - 20.08.2022 letter no.-
10 / PEN 300124101397/202211101810P1 dated
01.03.2024, whereby and whereunder the respondent no.-
6 has issued an order for recovery from the Gratuity /
death cum gratuity of the petitioners which is in the teeth
of the order dated- 23.09.2022, passed by the Hon'ble
High Court in C.W.J.C No.- 2783 of 2021 (Chandrakant
and others Vs. The State of Bihar and others) with
analogous cases.
(ii) For a direction to the respondent authorities to
refund the total amount with penal interest to the
petitioners which has been recovered without reason and
the recovery order is in the teeth of the order of the
Hon'ble High Court.”
2. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the instant
case is squarely covered by the judgment dated 23.09.2022
rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of
Chandrakant & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. and other
analogous cases, wherein, the Co-ordinate Bench has been
pleased to pass the following order;
“28. In the opinion of this Court, therefore, merely
because the decision would affect several teachers who
have been wrongly granted said benefit and who have
also retired, illegality cannot be allowed to be
perpetuated.
Patna High Court CWJC No.3371 of 2026(2) dt.11-03-2026
3/5
29. The prayer to quash the letter, dated
10.11.2020, is therefore liable to be rejected.
30. However, in the case of Syed Abdul Quadir
(supra) the Supreme Court examined whether recoveries
are required to be made in such circumstances and found
that the fault does not lie with the individual teachers to
whom the benefit has already been advanced and,
therefore, any amount which has already been released is
not required to be recovered. The view expressed in the
case of Syed Abdul Quadir has been reiterated by the
Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab & Ors. Vrs.
Rafiq Masih (white washer) & Ors. reported in (2015) 4
SCC 334 and further again reiterated in the case of
Thomas Daniel Vrs. State of Kerala & Ors. reported in
2022 SCC Online SC 536 wherein it has been held as
under:
"14. Coming to the facts of the present case, it is
not contended before us that on account of the
misrepresentation or fraud played by the appellant,
the excess amounts have been paid. The appellant
has retired on 31.03.1999. In fact, the case of the
respondents is that excess payment was made due
to a mistake in interpreting Kerala Service Rules
which was subsequently pointed out by the
Accountant General."
31. In view of the above, the contention raised by
the petitioners of having benefit of ACP Scheme or
MACP Scheme fails and the order passed by the
respondents, dated 10.11.2020 and consequential orders
thereto are upheld holding that the petitioners would only
Patna High Court CWJC No.3371 of 2026(2) dt.11-03-2026
4/5
be entitled to the benefits grated to them under Circular,
dated 16.11.2000.
32. However, it is further held that the petitioners
and other teachers who were wrongfully granted benefit
of ACP/MACP would have to get their pay fixation
revised and if they have retired, their pension would also
be accordingly revised. But, no recovery shall be made
for the extra amount which they have received.
33. All writ petitions are accordingly decided. No
costs.”
3. Counsel for the petitioners further submits that the
relief in the instant writ petition is only with regard to the
recovery order passed by the respondents which is in the teeth
of the order of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of
Punjab & Ors. vs. Rafiq Masih (white washer) & Ors. reported
in (2015) 4 SCC 334 and Thomas Daniel Vs. State of Kerala &
Ors. reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 536 and as also the order
passed by the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Chandrakant
(supra).
4. On the other hand, counsel for the State submits
that since the issues have already been put at rest by the Co-
ordinate Bench relying upon the various judgments passed by
the Hon’ble Apex Court and the said order has attained finality,
there is no reason for taking a divergent view in the case of the
petitioners.
Patna High Court CWJC No.3371 of 2026(2) dt.11-03-2026
5/5
5. Considering the fact that the issues have already
been put at rest and the recovery, which is said to have been
made from the death-cum-retiral gratuity of the petitioners has
already been held to be in teeth of the order dated 23.09.2022
passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of
Chandrakant (supra), this Court has no hesitation in granting the
similar relief to the petitioners and, accordingly, the letter nos.
202211101794PO dated-23.05.2022, letter no.-10/ PEN
030222101285 /202211101462 PO dated 16.03.2022, letter no.-
202211101711PO dated 02.05.2022, letter no.- 10/PEN
060722102749 / 202211102205PO dated-27.08.2022, letter no.
202211102152PO dated 20.08.2022 letter no.- 10 / PEN
300124101397/202211101810P1 dated 01.03.2024 are quashed.
6. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed.
(Ajit Kumar, J)
rishi/-
U
Checking your session…