Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 348 (PAT)

Shashi Bhushan Pandey v. State of Bihar

2025-03-26

HARISH KUMAR

body2025
ORDER Heard the parties. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved with the order as contained in letter no. 741 dated 07.11.2023 issued under the signature of the In-charge Medical Officer, Chewara, Sheikhpura by which the Senior Treasury Officer, Sheikhpura has directed for recovery of an amount of Rs. 97,587/- from the gratuity of the petitioner. In pursuant thereto, the Senior Treasury Officer, Sheikhpura deducted the amount afore-noted from the gratuity amount. 3. Mr. Umesh Kumar Verma, learned Advocate for the petitioner adverting to the facts enumerated in the writ petition has contended that the petitioner after rendering unblemished services, superannuated on 30.06.2023 from the post of Health Educator Supervisor from the office of the Primary Health Centre, Chewara, District Sheikhpura. On being superannuated from the service, the pension paper and other necessary documents were sent to the office of the Accountant General (A & E) Bihar, Patna and finally the pension payment order was issued granting Gratuity amount to the tune of Rs. 16,79,789/- vide letter dated 20.10.2023. Notwithstanding the aforesaid fact and without any explanation or show-cause notice issued to the petitioner, the In-charge Medical Officer, Chewara, Sheikhpura by the impugned order dated 07.11.2023 directed the Senior Treasury Officer, Sheikhpura to deduct the excess amount. 4. The petitioner on being appalled to see the action of the respondent authority, sought an information under Right to Information Act, 2005, whereupon he has been informed that the petitioner has been paid an excess amount of Rs. 53,568/ under the head of salary and further Rs. 44,019/- under the head of earned leave and in this way total 97,587/- has been paid in excess to the entitlement of the petitioner. The action of the respondent has been questioned by the learned Advocate for the petitioner on the strength of the ruling of the Apex Court in the case of The State of Punjab & Ors. vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) [ (2015) 4 SCC 334 ] and various other judgments. A judgment of the Division Bench of this Court has also been placed on record duly reported in the case of Bihar State Minorities Financial Corporation Ltd. & Anr. vs. Awadh Kishore Prasad & Anr. [ 2023 (4) BLJ 61 ]. 5. vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) [ (2015) 4 SCC 334 ] and various other judgments. A judgment of the Division Bench of this Court has also been placed on record duly reported in the case of Bihar State Minorities Financial Corporation Ltd. & Anr. vs. Awadh Kishore Prasad & Anr. [ 2023 (4) BLJ 61 ]. 5. Referring to the afore-noted decisions, it is further contended that there is no allegation of any misrepresentation or fraud against the petitioner, leading to alleged excess payment, moreover, the petitioner had already superannuated on 30.06.2023 itself. Hence, any recovery from the amount of Gratuity, is in the teeth of the mandate of the Apex Court. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Sanjay Parasmani, learned Advocate for the State, dispelling the contention of the petitioner afore-noted, has submitted that at the time of verification of the entitlement of the petitioner, it has been found that an excess amount to the tune of Rs. 97,587/- has been paid under the head of salary, as well as earned leave and thus, the petitioner was asked to deposit the sum, but he failed to do so; hence the impugned order came to be passed. 7. This Court has considered the submissions advanced on behalf of learned Advocate for the respective parties and also took note of the fact that the petitioner superannuated from the class III post of Health Educator Supervisor and it is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner has obtained the alleged excess amount, by misrepresentation or fraud. The law regarding recovery from an employee, who has already attained the age of superannuation, has been well settled in numerous decisions. It would be worth benefitting here to encapsulate the mandate of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra); – “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, summarize 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). Be that as it may, based on the decisions referred to hereinabove we may, as a ready reference, summarize 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". “(A) If it is from employees belonging from Class III and Class IV services (or Group C and Group D service); (B) If it is from retired employees or the employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery; (C) If it is 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; (D) From employees who were wrongfully made to discharge duties of higher post and have been paid accordingly even though they should have rightfully been required to work against an inferior post.” 8. It would be pertinent to observe here that the decision noted hereinabove came to be passed after reiterating the decisions passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a catena of decisions reported in Syed Abdul Qadir & Ors. vs State of Bihar & Ors. It would be pertinent to observe here that the decision noted hereinabove came to be passed after reiterating the decisions passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a catena of decisions reported in Syed Abdul Qadir & Ors. vs State of Bihar & Ors. [ (2009) 3 SCC 475 ]; Sahib Ram vs. State of Haryana [(1995) Suppl.1 SCC 18]; Shyam Babu Verma vs. Union of India [ (1994) 2 SCC 521 ]; V. Ganga Ram vs. Regional Joint Director & Ors.[ (1997) 6 SCC 139 ]; Purshottam Lal Das vs. State of Bihar [ (2006) 11 SCC 492 ]; Bihar State Electricity Board vs. Bijay Bhadur [ (2000) 10 SCC 99 ]; B.J. Akkara vs. Government of India & Ors. [ (2006) 11 SCC 709 ]. 9. After going through the mandate of the Apex Court wherein it has been crystallized that no recovery can be effected from an employee who has already attained the age of superannuation, more so, if there has neither been any misrepresentation nor any fraud has been committed by such an employee and there had not been any undertaking on his part. 10. In view thereof, this Court finds that no recovery can be made after superannuation of the petitioner from his gratuity amount, hence the impugned order as contained in letter no. 741 dated 07.11.2023 directing for recovery is held to be unsustainable and, as such, the same stands quashed and cancelled. 11. The concerned respondent authority is hereby directed to refund the amount in question preferably within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 12. The writ petition stands allowed.