Tender Age Doctrine Dictates Custody Must Ordinarily Rest With Mother For Child's Holistic Development: Punjab & Haryana High Court Article 226 | Newspaper Publication Confers Deemed Notice; Candidates Cannot Cite Rural Residence To Seek Belated Recruitment Applications: Calcutta High Court Proving Ownership Does Not Establish Jural Relationship Of Landlord-Tenant: Madras High Court Rules 1998 Overrules 1983 Guidelines; Selection Process For Principals Cannot Be Challenged By Unsuccessful Candidates Who Participated Without Demur: Allahabad High Court Panjab University Is An Inter-State Body Under S.72 Punjab Reorganisation Act, UGC Regulations Enhancing Superannuation Age To 65 Inapplicable Without Central Govt Sanction Under S.31 PU Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Police Enquiry Reports Do Not Bind Magistrate In S. 200 Private Complaint, Inquest Statements Under S. 174 Cannot Warrant Quashing Murder Summons: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 197 CrPC | Special Court Cannot Mechanically Treat Protest Petition As Complaint Without Reasoned Judicial Order: Allahabad High Court 'Errant Developer Cannot Seek De-Registration Of Society By Taking Benefit Of Own Wrong': Bombay High Court Quashes Order Disbanding 18-Year-Old Housing Body Section 12(5) A&C Act Cannot Be Applied Retrospectively To Invalidate Arbitrator Appointment Made Before 2015 Amendment: Delhi High Court Section 9 Arbitration Act | Non-Signatory Group Entities Can Be Restrained If They Are Used To Indirectly Defeat Negative Covenants: Bombay High Court CGST Act | Penalty Applies Prospectively From Jan 1, 2021; 'Any Person' Includes Non-Taxable Entities: Delhi High Court Nominated Members Barred From Voting Cannot Be Included In 'Total Number' To Compute 2/3rd Majority In No-Confidence Motion: Rajasthan High Court Full Bench Specific Performance | Agreement Executed By Some Co-Sharers Without Consent Of Others Is Not Enforceable: Madras High Court Trusteeship Of Public Charitable Trust Not Personal Property Capable Of Testamentary Devolution; Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Injunction Under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC Breach Of Service Rules By Arbitrator Does Not Automatically Trigger De Jure Ineligibility Under Section 12(5) A&C Act: Delhi High Court Declaration And Recovery Of Possession | Plaintiff Must Establish Title Irrespective Of Weakness In Defendant's Case: Madras High Court

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

07 May 2024 2:49 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