Allowed¶20

Syed Mohammad Jahangir v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC16 Sept 2025LPA/347/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Interest on illegally deducted retiral benefits; recovery without departmental proceeding held illegal; unjust enrichment and restitution with interest; acquittal in Criminal Revision after conviction under Sections 304A and 323/34 IPC; interest 6% rising to 9% on default; recovery of interest from erring officers' salary; L.P.A. No. 347 of 2024; High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi; relies on (2014) 6 SCC 335 and (2011) 8 SCC 161.

What did the court decide?

Interest @ 6% per annum on the refunded amount of Rs.4.00 Lakhs from the date of deduction till the date of refund, payable within six weeks; enhanced interest @ 9% per annum till the date of payment thereafter, recoverable from the salary of the erring officer(s); pending application(s), if any, disposed of accordingly. ¶20

Syed Mohammad Jahangir Vs the State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Jharkhand HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellant is entitled to interest on the amount of Rs.4.00 Lakhs deducted from his retiral benefits and already refunded to him. +1 more

¶11

Court's answer

Unjust enrichment is a benefit obtained from another which is legally unjustifiable, for which the beneficiary must make restitution or recompense; interest is often a normal relief in restitution, and money received by any person without right has to be refunded with interest.

¶17

Ratio / Principle

No departmental proceeding was initiated against the appellant for recovery of Rs.4.00 Lakhs despite the liberty granted by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 3600 of 2007; consequently, the deduction of Rs.4.00 Lakhs from the appellant's retiral benefits was illegal.

¶14

Key takeaways

Since Rs.4.00 Lakhs was illegally deducted from the retiral benefits of the appellant, he is entitled to be paid interest on the refunded amount, and the learned Single Judge committed an error in not granting interest.ratio¶18
The respondents are directed to pay interest @ 6% per annum on the refunded amount of Rs.4.00 Lakhs from the date of deduction till the date of refund, payable within six weeks; failing that, the appellant is entitled to enhanced interest @ 9% per annum till the date of payment, recoverable from the salary of the erring officer(s).ratio¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Letters Patent Appeal (L.P.A. No. 347 of 2024, High Court of Jharkhand) by a retired police officer allowed. Compensation of Rs.4.00 Lakhs paid to the widow of the deceased (Ranjan Kumar Sinha @ Pappu) pursuant to C.W.J.C No. 1427 of 1997(R) was sought to be recovered from the appellant by letter no. 1434 dated 29.05.2007; that recovery order was quashed in W.P.(S) No. 3600 of 2007 (order dated 17.01.2017) with liberty to the State to initiate appropriate recovery proceedings, but no departmental proceeding was ever initiated, and the amount was nonetheless deducted from the appellant's retiral benefits on his superannuation (31.01.2008). After his acquittal in Criminal Revision No. 438 of 2013 (order dated 28.03.2022), W.P.(S) No. 3676 of 2023 secured refund of the principal but no interest (impugned order dated 23.11.2023). Holding the deduction illegal and relying on Union of India through Director of Income Tax Vs. Tata Chemicals Ltd., (2014) 6 SCC 335, and Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action Vs. Union of India, (2011) 8 SCC 161 (money received and retained without right must be refunded with interest; interest is a normal relief in restitution), the Division Bench directed interest @ 6% per annum from the date of deduction till refund, payable within six weeks, failing which enhanced interest @ 9% per annum till payment, recoverable from the salary of the erring officer(s).

¶1

2025:JHHC:28303-DB

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

L.P.A. No. 347 of 2024

¶4

---

¶5

Syed Mohammad Jahangir, son of Late S.M.Alamgir, resident of Mohalla Shamsher Nagar, Pandarpala, P.O.-B Polytechnic, P.S.- Dhanbad (Bhuli O.P.), District-Dhanbad

¶6

… … Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Jharkhand

¶9

The Secretary, Ministry of Home, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi

¶10

The Director General of Police, Jharkhand, Ranchi

¶11

The Additional Director General of Police, Special Branch, Jharkhand, Police Head Quarter, P.O. & P.S.- Dhurwa, Ranchi

¶12

The Deputy Inspector General of Police (Personnel), Jharkhand, Police Head Quarter, P.O. & P.S.- Dhurwa, Ranchi

¶13

The Senior Superintendent of Police, Ranchi

¶14

The Superintendent of Police, Special Branch, Jharkhand, Ranchi …. … Respondents

¶15

…. … Respondents

¶16

CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

¶17

---

¶18

For the Appellant : Mr. Shahid Khan, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Ashutosh Anand, A.A.G.-III --- Reserved on 11.09.2025 Pronounced on 16.09.2025 Per : Rajesh Shankar, J. :

¶19

The present appeal is directed against the order dated 23.11.2023 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 3676 of 2023 which was disposed of directing the appellant/writ petitioner to file a fresh representation and the respondents were directed to consider the same in accordance with law and thereafter to pass a speaking and reasoned order taking into consideration the fact that the writ petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case. It was also observed that if the decision was taken in favour of the appellant/writ petitioner, the amount of Rs.4.00 Lakhs deducted from his retiral benefits would be refunded to him. However, the learned Single Judge did not pass any order for payment of

¶20

¶21

2025:JHHC:28303-DB

¶22

interest on the said amount.

¶23

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that a criminal case being Chutia P.S Case No. 03 of 1997 corresponding to G.R. No. 39 of 1997 was instituted against the appellant and one Aradhna Singh for the offence punishable under Section 304A of IPC causing death of Ranjan Kumar Sinha @ Pappu due to negligence. The widow of the deceased preferred writ petition being C.W.J.C No. 1427 of 1997(R) which was decided vide order dated 02.03.2007 directing the Chief Secretary and Director General of Police, Government of Jharkhand to ensure payment of Rs.4.00 Lakhs to the wife of the deceased.

¶24

3. It is further submitted that in compliance of the aforesaid order, the Home Department, Government of Jharkhand paid the amount of Rs.4 Lakhs to the wife of the deceased. However, vide letter no. 1434 dated 29.05.2007 issued by the Superintendent of Police, Special Branch, Ranchi, the appellant was directed to deposit the said amount in the head quarter of the Special Branch, Ranchi.

¶25

4. It is also submitted that being aggrieved with the order of recovery of the said amount, the appellant preferred a writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 3600 of 2007. Thereafter, he retired from service on 31.01.2008 and the amount of Rs.4.00 Lakhs was deducted from his retiral benefits.

¶26

5. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that subsequently, the appellant was convicted in the criminal case for the offence under section 304-A of IPC and was sentenced for

¶27

¶28

2025:JHHC:28303-DB

¶29

R.I. of two years vide judgment dated 23.02.2010 passed by the Judicial Magistrate-1^st Class, Ranchi. Being aggrieved with the said judgment, the appellant preferred Criminal Appeal No. 44 of 2010 in which vide judgment dated 09.08.2012 passed by the Additional Judicial Commissioner-XVI, Ranchi, conviction of the appellant was converted from Section 304-A IPC to Section 323/34 IPC and he was sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year.

¶30

6. It is also submitted that the writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 3600 of 2007 was subsequently allowed vide order dated 17.01.2017 and the order of recovery passed vide letter no. 1434 dated 29.05.2007 was quashed giving liberty to the State to initiate appropriate proceeding against the petitioner for recovery of the amount of compensation.

¶31

7. It is further argued that the petitioner being aggrieved with the judgments dated 23.02.2010 and 09.08.2012 passed by the trial court and the appellate court respectively, preferred revision before this Court being Criminal Revision No. 438 of 2013 which was allowed vide order dated 28.03.2022 and the appellant was acquitted of the charges levelled against him.

¶32

8. Learned counsel for the appellant further contends that the appellant thereafter preferred a writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 3676 of 2023 seeking direction upon the respondents to refund the amount of Rs.4.00 Lakhs with interest which was deducted from his retiral benefits. The said writ petition was disposed of vide impugned order dated 23.11.2023 directing the appellant to file a fresh representation with further direction to the

¶33

¶34

2025:JHHC:28303-DB

¶35

respondents to consider the said representation in accordance with law and thereafter to pass a speaking and reasoned order taking into consideration the fact that the appellant was acquitted in the criminal case. It was further observed that if the decision was taken in favour of the appellant, the amount of Rs.4.00 Lakhs deducted from his retiral benefits would be refunded to him, however no observation was given with respect to his claim for interest.

¶36

9. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the amount paid to the wife of the deceased was rightly deducted from the retiral benefits of the appellant. However, in compliance of the direction contained in order dated 23.11.2023 passed in W.P.(S) No. 3676 of 2023, the respondents have already refunded the amount of Rs.4 Lakhs to the appellant and as such, the present appeal filed for interest on the said amount is liable to be dismissed.

¶37

10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 11. It is not in dispute that the amount of Rs. 4.00 Lakhs has already been refunded to the appellant which was deducted from his retiral benefits and thus, the short question falls for consideration of this Court is as to whether the appellant is entitled to interest over the said amount.

¶38

12. We have perused the order dated 17.01.2017 passed in W.P.(S) No. 3600 of 2007, the operative part of which is quoted hereunder: -

¶39

¶40

2025:JHHC:28303-DB

¶41

“6. Admittedly, no departmental proceeding for recovery of the amount paid as compensation to the widow of the deceased Ranjan Kumar Sinha was initiated by the department. For committing an offence, the petitioner was charge-sheeted and faced trial in T.R. No.194/2008. It is stated that the petitioner has been convicted in the said case, however, an appeal preferred by him is pending in the court. Be that as it may, taking note of the report of the National Human Rights Commission, which held that the State is vicariously liable to compensate the dependents of the deceased, this Court passed an order for payment of compensation of Rs. 4 Lacs. There was no decision by the Court on culpability or liability of the petitioner to pay compensation. Order dated 28.03.2007 issued by the Home Department would also disclose that the said amount was to be borne under the Budget Head '2235'. However, by the said order a direction was issued for recovery of Rs.4 Lacs from the police officer responsible for the incident. In the light of the aforesaid direction unless it is found that the petitioner was solely responsible for the incident, order for recovery of Rs. 4 Lacs from him cannot be made. The order of conviction in the criminal case is under challenge.

¶42

In the light of the aforesaid facts, the impugned order dated 29.05.2007 whereunder, the petitioner has been directed to deposit Rs. 4 Lacs is hereby quashed. It is stated that the petitioner has since

¶43

¶44

2025:JHHC:28303-DB

¶45

retired from service. However, before his superannuation from service he approached this Court on 03.07.2007 and while so, the State has jurisdiction to cause an enquiry or to initiate appropriate proceeding against the petitioner for recovery of the amount of compensation, that is, Rs. 4 Lacs.

¶46

The writ petition stands allowed, however, with liberty to the respondents to initiate appropriate proceeding in the matter.”

¶47

13. The learned Single Judge having observed that there was no decision by the Court in C.W.J.C No. 1427 of 1997(R) on culpability or liability of the appellant to pay compensation and no departmental proceeding was initiated against him by the department for recovery of the amount paid as compensation to the wife of the deceased, quashed the order of recovery with a liberty to the respondents to initiate appropriate proceeding in the matter.

¶48

14. It is an admitted fact that no departmental proceeding was initiated against the appellant for recovery of the amount of Rs.4.00 Lakhs as per the liberty granted by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 3600 of 2007. Thus, deduction of Rs.4.00 Lakhs from the retiral benefits of the appellant was illegal.

¶49

15. In the case of Union of India through Director of Income Tax Vs. Tata Chemicals Ltd. reported in (2014) 6

¶50

SCC 335 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: -

¶51

¶52

2025:JHHC:28303-DB

¶53

“38. ------------ The State having received the money without right, and having retained and used it, is bound to make the party good, just as an individual would be under like circumstances. The obligation to refund money received and retained without right implies and carries with it the right to interest. Whenever money has been received by a party which ex ae quo et bono ought to be refunded, the right to interest follows, as a matter of course.”

¶54

In the case of Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action

¶55

16. In the case of Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action Vs. Union of India reported in (2011) 8 SCC 161 , the Hon’ble

¶56

Supreme Court has held as under: -

¶57

“159. Unjust enrichment is basic to the subject of restitution, and is indeed approached as a fundamental principle thereof. They are usually linked together, and restitution is frequently based upon the theory of unjust enrichment. However, although unjust enrichment is often referred to or regarded as a ground for restitution, it is perhaps more accurate to regard it as a prerequisite, for usually there can be no restitution without unjust enrichment. It is defined as the unjust retention of a benefit to the loss of another or the retention of money or property of another against the fundamental principles of justice or equity and good conscience. A person is enriched if he has received a benefit, and he is unjustly enriched if retention of the benefit would be unjust. Unjust enrichment of a

¶58

¶59

2025:JHHC:28303-DB

¶60

person occurs when he has and retains money or benefits which in justice and equity belong to another.

¶61

The terms “unjust enrichment” and “restitution” are like the two shades of green—one leaning towards yellow and the other towards blue. With restitution, so long as the deprivation of the other has not been fully compensated for, injustice to that extent remains. Which label is appropriate under which circumstances would depend on the facts of the particular case before the court. The courts have wide powers to grant restitution, and more so where it relates to misuse or non-compliance with court orders.

¶62

The Court in the aforesaid judgment also observed that once the doctrine of restitution is attracted, the interest is often a normal relief given in restitution. Such interest is not controlled by the provisions of the Interest Act of 1839 or of 1978.”

¶63

17. Thus, unjust enrichment is a benefit obtained from another which is legally unjustifiable, for which the beneficiary must make restitution or recompense and interest is often a normal relief given in restitution. If money has been received by any person without right, the same has to be refunded with interest.

¶64

18. In the present case, since an amount of Rs.4.00 Lakhs was illegally deducted from the retiral benefits of the appellant, he is entitled to be paid interest on the said amount and the

¶65

¶66

2025:JHHC:28303-DB

¶67

learned Single Judge has committed an error in not granting the interest to the appellant on the refunded amount.

¶68

19. Under the said circumstance, the respondents are directed to pay interest to the appellant @ 6% per annum on the refunded amount of Rs.4.00 Lakhs from the date of deduction till the date of refund of the same. The said payment shall be made within six weeks from the date of this order whereafter, the appellant shall be entitled for enhanced interest @ 9% per annum till the date of payment and the said interest amount shall be recovered from the salary of the erring officer(s).

¶69

20. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed.

¶70

21. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of

¶71

accordingly.

¶72

(Tarlok Singh Chauhan, C.J.)

¶73

(Rajesh Shankar, J.)

¶74

September 16, 2025 Ritesh/ A.F.R.

¶75

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order dated 23.11.2023 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 3676 of 2023 disposing of the writ petition: appellant directed to file a fresh representation; respondents to consider it in accordance with law and pass a speaking and reasoned order taking into account his acquittal; refund of Rs.4.00 Lakhs if decided in his favour; no order for interest.¶1
Learned Single Judge, High Court of Jharkhand · 23.11.2023
Prior proceeding
Criminal case Chutia P.S Case No. 03 of 1997 (G.R. No. 39 of 1997) instituted against the appellant and one Aradhna Singh for the offence punishable under Section 304A IPC, arising out of the death of Ranjan Kumar Sinha @ Pappu due to negligence.¶2
Prior proceeding
Writ petition C.W.J.C No. 1427 of 1997(R) by the widow of the deceased decided vide order dated 02.03.2007 directing the Chief Secretary and Director General of Police, Government of Jharkhand to ensure payment of Rs.4.00 Lakhs to the wife of the deceased.¶2
Prior proceeding
In compliance, the Home Department paid Rs.4 Lakhs to the wife of the deceased; vide letter no. 1434 dated 29.05.2007 the Superintendent of Police, Special Branch, Ranchi directed the appellant to deposit the amount at the Special Branch headquarters.¶3
Prior proceeding
Aggrieved by the recovery order, the appellant filed W.P.(S) No. 3600 of 2007; he retired from service on 31.01.2008 and Rs.4.00 Lakhs was deducted from his retiral benefits.¶4
Prior proceeding
The appellant was convicted for the offence under section 304-A IPC and sentenced to R.I. for two years vide judgment dated 23.02.2010 passed by the Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Ranchi.¶5
Prior proceeding
In Criminal Appeal No. 44 of 2010, vide judgment dated 09.08.2012 the Additional Judicial Commissioner-XVI, Ranchi converted the conviction from Section 304-A IPC to Section 323/34 IPC and sentenced the appellant to R.I. for one year.¶5
Prior proceeding
W.P.(S) No. 3600 of 2007 was allowed vide order dated 17.01.2017; the recovery order (letter no. 1434 dated 29.05.2007) was quashed with liberty to the respondents to initiate appropriate proceeding for recovery of the compensation amount.¶6
Prior proceeding
Criminal Revision No. 438 of 2013 preferred against the judgments dated 23.02.2010 and 09.08.2012 was allowed vide order dated 28.03.2022 and the appellant was acquitted of the charges levelled against him.¶7
Prior proceeding
The appellant filed W.P.(S) No. 3676 of 2023 seeking refund of Rs.4.00 Lakhs with interest; it was disposed of vide the impugned order dated 23.11.2023 without any observation on interest.¶8
Prior proceeding
In compliance of the direction in the order dated 23.11.2023, the respondents refunded Rs.4 Lakhs to the appellant; the present appeal is confined to interest on that amount.¶9

Syed Mohammad Jahangir v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Syed Mohammad Jahangir v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajesh Kumar Rajwar Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary

Rishi Ranjan Alias Vicky Jaiswal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand State Mineral Development Corporation through Its Managing Director Vs Nirmal Singh

M/S S S Authomobiles through Its Partner, Namely, Sanjay Kumar Singh Vs Central Coalfields Limited through Its Chairman-Cum-Managing Director

Sheo Narayan Sahu Vs State of Jharkhand

The State of Jharkhand Vs Radhe Shyam Pandey