Registration Of FIR Is Mandatory If Information Ex Facie Discloses Commission Of  Cognizable Offence: Supreme Court 'No Res Judicata': Supreme Court Holds Rejection Of Section 156(3) CrPC Plea Is No Bar To Subsequent Registration Of FIR Auto Dealers' Referral Charges From Banks & Insurers Constitute 'Business Auxiliary Service', But No Penalty If Tax Paid Before Show Cause Notice: Supreme Court MACT | Appellate Courts Must Liberally Admit Additional Evidence Under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC To Compute 'Just Compensation': Supreme Court MACT | Post-Accident Vehicle Position On Sketch Cannot Be Sole Basis To Infer Contributory Negligence: Supreme Court Enhances Compensation To ₹50.8 Lakhs 'Sanction Under Section 19(1)(c) PC Act Must Be Granted By Removing Authority': Supreme Court Sets Aside Conviction Mere Recovery Of Money Cannot Resurrect Prosecution Proof Of Demand Is Sine Qua: Supreme Court Lok Adalat Awards Without Signatures Of All Rival Claimants Are Invalid, Order I Rule 8 CPC Inapplicable: Supreme Court Lok Adalat Cannot Decide Title Disputes, Mere Physical Possession Doesn't Prove Ownership": Supreme Court Quashes Land Acquisition Awards Power Discoms Can't Escape Liability: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Damages For Death Caused By Snapped Live Wires Lying On Ground Extra-Judicial Confessions To Village Administrative Officers Cannot Be Accepted As Gospel Truth Without Signatures And Corroboration: Madras High Court Acquits Murder Accused 'Article 21 Trumps UAPA Rigors': Allahabad High Court Grants Bail To PFI Members After 5 Years In Jail Due To 'Sluggish' Trial"

Patna High Court Quashes Recovery Order, Grants Relief to Retired Employees

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Patna High Court has quashed the recovery order issued by the Bihar Government to recover excess payments made to retired employees. The judgment, delivered by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Purnendu Singh on 27th July 2023, provides a major relief to the retired employees who were facing financial hardships due to the recovery order. “Recovery from employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV service would be impermissible in law.”

The court, in its landmark decision, cited guidelines provided by the Supreme Court in State Of Punjab & Others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and anr. [(2015) 4 SCC 334], emphasizing the need for equitable consideration in cases of recovery. The judgment highlighted that recovery by the employer would be impermissible in law if it resulted in iniquitous or harsh consequences for the employees.

The case revolved around the Assured Career Progression (ACP) and Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) schemes, which were introduced to provide financial benefits to employees who faced limited promotional opportunities. The court clarified that these schemes were intended to grant monetary benefits without actual promotions and were aimed at relieving frustration caused by stagnation.

The controversy arose when the Bihar Government Issued a subsequent notification, Memo No. 1237 dated 10.10.2018, modifying earlier notifications and directing recovery from retired employees after several years of their retirement. The court held that this action, without proper approval and authentication, was without jurisdiction and unwarranted.

“Benefit granted to employees through the original notification cannot be taken away by executive order after several years of retirement,” the court stated in its judgment.

The court directed the Bihar Government to rectify the original notification, if necessary, after giving a proper opportunity to individual petitioners. This ruling has brought respite to the retired employees who were facing financial hardships due to the recovery order.

Date of Decision: 27th July 2023

Rupa Prasad Vs The State Of Bihar

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Smt_Rupa_Prasad_And_Ors_vs_The_State_Of_Bihar_And_Ors_on_27_July_2023_Pat.HC_.pdf"]

Latest Legal News