IBC Moratorium | Criminal Court Cannot Direct Disbursal Of Corporate Debtor's Assets To Complainant Pending CIRP: Supreme Court Section 138 NI Act | Failure To Implead Company As Accused Renders Complaint Fatally Defective; Section 319 CrPC Cannot Be Used To Cure Such Fundamental Defect: Supreme Court 'Last Seen Theory' Alone Cannot Sustain Conviction: Supreme Court Acquits Man In Murder Case 'Every Lawyer Has A Duty To Act Decently': Supreme Court Modifies Suspension Of Advocate For Misconduct In Court Premises Mere Declaration Of 'Transitional Area' Under Article 243-Q(1)(a) Of Constitution Does Not Automatically Convert Rural Area Into Urban Area: Supreme Court Supreme Court Quashes Externment Order, Terms Non-Compliance With Natural Justice A "Travesty Of Constitutional Guarantees" 'Certiorari Is Not Appellate': Supreme Court Rejects Plea In Decades-Old Co-operative Society Membership Dispute Victim Must Authorize Settlement: Supreme Court Rules Informants Cannot Quash Criminal Cases Without Real Victim's Consent State Cannot Pick And Choose: Supreme Court Restores Right To Retrospective Regularisation For Daily Wage Employees Order VI Rule 17 CPC | Amendment of Plaint After Commencement Of Trial Cannot Be Allowed Without Proving Due Diligence: Supreme Court Discrepancy Between Ocular Testimony And Medical Evidence Creates Reasonable Doubt: Supreme Court Order VI Rule 17 & Order VIII Rule 6A CPC | Counter Claim Cannot Be Permitted After Trial Concludes When Party Fails To Pay Court Fees Initially: Supreme Court Nominee Holds Insurance Proceeds In Trust For Legal Heirs; Supreme Court Directs Equitable Distribution Pending Succession Proceedings PC Act | Court Must Impose Statutory Minimum Imprisonment Upon Conviction Under Sections 7 And 13(2): Supreme Court Supreme Court Quashes Corruption Case Against Official Caught In Factional Crossfire Retaliatory Counterblasts Cannot Be Used As Weapons Of Harassment: Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Complaint Over Civil Land Dispute Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Court Must Defer Question Of Ad-Valorem Court Fee To Evidence When Possession Status Is Disputed: Supreme Court Minor Shortfall In Earnest Money Deposit Does Not Vitiate Auction Sale If It Causes No Prejudice: Supreme Court 'Flimsy And Untenable': Supreme Court Cancels Bail Of Accused In Gruesome 'Petrol-Burning' Murder Case Parity Is Not A Mechanical Mathematical Formula: Supreme Court Rejects Bail Plea Of Murder Accused Article 142 Constitution of India | Supreme Court May Protect Retiral Benefits Of Employees Whose Caste Certificates Are Invalidated In Exceptional Cases Omission Of CGST Rule 96(10) Applies To All Pending Proceedings: Supreme Court Mere Marking Does Not Prove Contents: Supreme Court Clarifies Evidence Law In Testamentary Proceedings Arbitral Tribunal Under Section 16 Of A&C Act Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Determine Arbitrability Of Claims Including Excepted Matters: Supreme Court Arbitration Agreement Can Be Incorporated Into A Personal Guarantee Through A Composite 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