Back
PATNA HIGH COURT
ALOK KUMAR SINHA, J
Sumitra Devi – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of recovery orders and employee's service history. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments against the recovery order regarding lack of notice and misrepresentation. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. defense of the recovery order by the state. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. court's view on legality of the recovery order. (Para 8 , 9) |
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 05-12-2025 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned counsel appearing for the respondent State and learned appearing for the respondent Accountant General.
2. The petitioners in the present writ application have prayed for the grant of following relief(s): -
“(i) To quash the letter no 82 dated 16.05.2017 (Annexure-1) issued under the signature of Respondent no 7 whereby and whereunder petitioner has been directed to ensure deposit of Rs 8,33,537-00 in the State Bank of India, Purnea Branch, which was paid to him by way of increment during the period 1.4.1981 to 31.8.2012 without passing of Hindi Noting and Drafting examination Aforesaid order is bad in law as well as on facts, because same has been issued in complete violation of principle of natural justice, that too after superannuation of the petitioner. Aforesaid order is fu
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
