Petitioner challenged unilateral recovery of excess gratuity from pension via PPO without prior hearing. Court held recovery illegal, quashed orders, restrained bank recovery, and directed refund with interest.
Orders quashed; recovery restrained; refund with 12.5% interest directed within three weeks.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6616 of 2020
======================================================
Harendra Prasad Singh Son of Late Jayram Singh Resident of Village Rasulpur, Post Office Jaitipur, Police Station Lalganj, District Vaishali at Hazipur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Lalan Kumar Singh, Advocate. For the State : Mr. U. P. Singh, AC to SC-4. For the Accountant General: Mr. Vivekanand Kumar, Advocate.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 19-06-2023
Heard Mr. Lalan Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. U.P. Singh, learned AC to SC-4 for the State and Mr. Vivekanand Kumar, learned counsel for the Accountant General.
Patna High Court CWJC No.6616 of 2020 dt.19-06-2023 2/6
letter issued by the Executive Engineer, Public Health, Mechanical Division, Muzaffarpur vide Letter No. 523 dated 19.07.2018 (Annexure-5/B) and subsequently by the PPO No. 201411031017 dated 30.08.2018 (Annexure-2) issued by the Accountant General.
Patna High Court CWJC No.6616 of 2020 dt.19-06-2023 3/6
been done in the present case.
Patna High Court CWJC No.6616 of 2020 dt.19-06-2023 4/6
(Annexure-2) issued by the Accountant General is also quashed.
Punjab and Others Vs. Rafiq Masih (Whiter Washer) and
Others reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334, that no recovery can be made after a lapse of more than six years. The recovery if at all was detected must have been recovered within a very short span of time just after the retirement of the petitioner . Paragraph 18 of the judgment is reproduced hereunder:
“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 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
Patna High Court CWJC No.6616 of 2020 dt.19-06-2023 5/6
the employer's right to recover.”
Vaishali is restrained from making further recovery as the order dated 19.07.2018 (Annexure-5/B) has already been quashed by this Court.
Patna High Court CWJC No.6616 of 2020 dt.19-06-2023 6/6
of.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
mantreshwar/-
AFR/NAFR N.A.F.R. CAV DATE N.A. Uploading Date 28.06.2023 Transmission Date N.A.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether recovery of excess gratuity paid to a retired Class-III employee from pension without an opportunity of hearing is sustainable in law.
Whether the State can unilaterally recover money already disbursed from pension accounts without prior communication or show-cause notice.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Punjab and Others Vs. Rafiq Masih (Whiter Washer) and OthersFollowed¶28
(2015) 4 SCC 334 · Who else cites this
Amrika Devi and Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar and Ors.Explained¶43
C.W.J.C. No. 10063 of 2012
Harendra Prasad Singh
The State of Bihar
Purnendu Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
