At the Stage of Framing Charge, Presumption Suffices; Suicide Note and Grave Suspicion Enough: Allahabad High Court Refuses to Quash Charge Under Section 306 IPC 173 CrPC | Framing of Charge Marks End of Investigation—Complainant Cannot Reopen Probe Merely by Citing Police Lapses: Bombay High Court Recovery Alone Cannot Prove Guilt: Andhra Pradesh High Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case Photos, Videos Must Go: Supreme Court Binds Warring Spouses to Clean Up Social Media in Matrimonial Settlement Standard for Bail Under Section 319 CrPC Is Higher Than Framing of Charge, But Short of Conviction: Supreme Court Grants Bail to Accused Summoned Mid-Trial State Cannot Arbitrarily Deny Subsidies to 'New Industrial Units' by Retrospectively Applying Expansion Caps: Supreme Court Companies Act | Offence Under Section 448 Is Covered Under Section 447: Supreme Court Bars Private Complaint Without SFIO Nod “See-To-It” Obligation Is Not A Guarantee Under Indian Law: Supreme Court Clarifies Scope Of Section 126 ICA In IBC Disputes Mere Employment of Litigant’s Relatives in Police or Court Doesn't Prove Judicial Bias: Supreme Court Sets Aside Transfer of Criminal Case Reserved Candidate Availing Relaxed Standards in Prelims Cannot Migrate to General Quota for Cadre Allocation: Supreme Court Mere Vesting Does Not Mean Possession: Supreme Court Rules ULC Proceedings Abated For Failure To Serve Mandatory Notice To Actual Occupants Contempt of Courts Act | Natural Justice in Administrative Action: Supreme Court Directs West Bengal Govt to Re-Adjudicate Teachers' Arrears Claims Live-In Relationship with Married Man Not a ‘Relationship in the Nature of Marriage’ Under Domestic Violence Act: Bombay High Court Applies Supreme Court Guidelines Income Tax Act | Substitution of Shares held as Stock-in-Trade upon Amalgamation constitutes Taxable Business Income if Commercially Realisable: Supreme Court Judges Cannot Enact Their Own Protocols During Bail Hearings: Supreme Court Sets Aside Sweeping Age Determination Directions In POCSO If There Is Knowledge That Injury Is Likely To Cause Death, But No Intention Falls Under Section 304 Part II:  Supreme Court High Court Ignored POCSO’s Statutory Rigour, Committed Grave Error in Granting Bail: Supreme Court Cancels Bail of Gang-Rape Accused Section 22 HSA | Co-Heirs Have Statutory Right of Pre-Emption Even in Urban Property: Punjab & Haryana High Court 138 NI Act | Issuance of Separate Cheques Gives Rise to Independent Causes of Action, Even if Drawn for Same Underlying Transaction: Supreme Court

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

  • by sayum
    10 January 2026 2:26 PM
Contempt of Courts Act | Natural Justice in Administrative Action: Supreme Court Directs West Bengal Govt to Re-Adjudicate Teachers' Arrears Claims
  • by sayum
    10 January 2026 2:26 PM
Mere Vesting Does Not Mean Possession: Supreme Court Rules ULC Proceedings Abated For Failure To Serve Mandatory Notice To Actual Occupants
  • by sayum
    10 January 2026 2:26 PM
Reserved Candidate Availing Relaxed Standards in Prelims Cannot Migrate to General Quota for Cadre Allocation: Supreme Court
  • by sayum
    10 January 2026 2:26 PM
Mere Employment of Litigant’s Relatives in Police or Court Doesn't Prove Judicial Bias: Supreme Court Sets Aside Transfer of Criminal Case
  • by sayum
    10 January 2026 2:25 PM
“See-To-It” Obligation Is Not A Guarantee Under Indian Law: Supreme Court Clarifies Scope Of Section 126 ICA In IBC Disputes
  • by sayum
    10 January 2026 2:25 PM
Companies Act | Offence Under Section 448 Is Covered Under Section 447: Supreme Court Bars Private Complaint Without SFIO Nod