Letters Patent Appeal against a Single Judge order setting aside recovery of excess grade pay from retired employees. The Court distinguished Jagdev Singh from Rafique Masih, holding that since petitioners were Class-III retired employees without specific undertakings, recovery was impermissible. Appeal dismissed.
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 Letters Patent Appeal No.273 of 2022
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.186 of 2020
======================================================
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
... ... Respondent/s
====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Md. Nasrul Hoda Khan, SC-1 Mr. Md. Harun Quareshi, AC to SC-1 For the Respondent/s : Mr. Aditya Narain Singh, Advocate ======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NANI TAGIA ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NANI TAGIA)
Date : 19-07-2024
Heard Mr. Md. Nasrul Hoda Khan, learned SC-1, representing the appellants and Mr. Aditya Narain Singh, representing the respondents.
Re:- I.A. No. 01 of 2022
Patna High Court L.P.A No.273 of 2022 dt.19-07-2024 2/8
with a prayer for condonation of delay in filing L.P.A. No. 273 of 2022. Though, the number of days of delay in filing the L.P.A. has not been mentioned in the interlocutory application, for the reasons stated in the interlocutory application, delay in filing L.P.A. No. 273 of 2022 is hereby condoned, in the interest of justice.
Re:- L.P.A. No. 273 of 2022
Patna High Court L.P.A No.273 of 2022 dt.19-07-2024 3/8
petitioners were not entitled to a higher grade-pay.
29.02.2016, 31.01.2017 and 30.04.2019, respectively.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.273 of 2022 dt.19-07-2024 4/8
Revised Pay Rules, 2001, wherein, the officer was required to submit an undertaking that any excess payment which may be found to have been paid, will be refunded to the Government either by adjustment against future payments due or otherwise.
Court in of the case of Jagdev Singh (supra), in paragraph nos. 10 and 11 has held as under:-
“10. In State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih [State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih, this Court held that while it is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship where payments have mistakenly been made by an employer, in the following situations, a recovery by the employer would be impermissible in law:
(i) Recovery from employees belonging to Class III and Class IV service (or Group C and Group D service).
(ii) Recovery from retired employees, or employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery.
(iii) Recovery from employees, when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery is issued.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.273 of 2022 dt.19-07-2024
5/8
(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.
11. The principle enunciated in Proposition (ii) above cannot apply to a situation such as in the present case. In the present case, the officer to whom the payment was made in the first instance was clearly placed on notice that any payment found to have been made in excess would be required to be refunded. The officer furnished an undertaking while opting for the revised pay scale. He is bound by the undertaking.”
Patna High Court L.P.A No.273 of 2022 dt.19-07-2024 6/8
by the employer from the employees which has been mistakenly paid, would be impermissible in law, inter alia (i) from employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV service (or Group C and Group D service) and (ii) from retired employees, or employees who are due to retire within one year of the order of recovery.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.273 of 2022 dt.19-07-2024 7/8
be not applicable, it is found that the distinguishing feature in the case of Jagdev Singh (supra) was that unlike in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra), the employee from which the recovery was sought to be made was not either Class-III or Class-IV employee, but was an Additional Civil Judge. That apart, the employee, Jagdev Singh was clearly placed on notice that any payment found to have been made in excess, would be required to be refunded. To that effect, the officer had also furnished an undertaking for refund while opting for the revised pay-scale, which was not the case in Rafiq Masih (supra) . It was on the above distinguishing features in the case of Jagdev Singh (supra) that the Supreme Court has held that the proposition enunciated in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra) will not be applicable therein.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.273 of 2022 dt.19-07-2024 8/8
dated 06.01.2017, 13.06.2017 and 04.10.2019, issued by the Deputy Collector (Establishment), Ara relying on the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra), inasmuch as, the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3/petitioners are all retired Class-III (or Grade-C) employees.
of merit.
Re:- I.A. No. 02 of 2022
(K. Vinod Chandran, CJ)
(Nani Tagia, J)
Amrendra/-
| AFR/NAFR | NAFR |
|---|---|
| CAV DATE | N/A |
| Uploading Date | 20.07.2024 |
| Transmission Date | N/A |
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the recovery of excess pay from retired Class-III employees was impermissible under State of Punjab v. Rafique Masih?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Punjab v. Rafique MasihRelied on¶53
State of Punjab Vs. Rafique Masih ; (2015) 4 SCC 334 · Who else cites this
High Court of Punjab and Haryana v. Jagdev SinghDistinguished¶53
High Court of Punjab and Haryana Vs. Jagdev Singh; (2016) 14 SCC 267 · Who else cites this
The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of General Administration, Govt. of Bihar, Patna
The Principal Secretary, Department of Finance, Govt. of Bihar, Patna
The District Magistrate, Bhojpur, Ara
The District Account Officer, Bhojpur, Ara
The Deputy Collector (Establishment), Bhojpur, Ara
The Treasury Officer, Bhojpur, Ara
K. Vinod Chandran
Nani Tagia
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
