SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Pat) 396

PATNA HIGH COURT
Jitendra Singh – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar – Respondent
CWJC-13011/2025



##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13011 of 2025

======================================================

Jitendra Singh Son of Ram Chandra Singh, Resident of Mohalla-Sherpur,

Gandak Colony, Police Station Sadar, District-Muzaffarpur.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Water Resources

Department, Bihar, Patna.

2. The Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

3. The Chief Engineer, Mechanical, Water Resources Department, Bihar, Patna.

4. The Superintending Engineer, Irrigation Mechanical Circle, Muzaffarpur.

5. The Executive Engineer, Mechanical, Irrigation Mechanical Division,

Muzaffarpur.

6. The Treasury Officer, Muzaffarpur.

7. The Accountant General, Bihar, Patna.

... ... Respondent/s

======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Sanjeev Kumar Singh

For the Respondent/s : Mr.Government Pleader (10)

======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR

ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 31-01-2026

In the instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the

following relief(s):-

“That the present writ application is

being filed on behalf of the petitioner above

named for issuance of appropriate writ/writs,

order/orders in the nature of certiorari for

quashing part of order contained in letter no.

205 dated 27.02.2025 issued by respondent

no.5, whereby direction has been given to

withhold amount of Rs. 602768/- from post

retirement benefits i.e. gratuity amount and

pension amount on non est ground that the

case related to pay anamoly is pending for

consideration before this Hon'ble Court,

without appreciating the fact that this Hon'ble

Court vide order dated 09.02.2024 has already

##PAGE2##

Patna High Court CWJC No.13011 of 2025 dt.31-01-2026

2/5

stayed the recovery from the salary of the

petitioner. In consequent thereof, the petitioner

further prays for direction to make payment of

entire gratuity amount as well as pension for

the period from February, 2025 to May, 2025

with admissible statutory interest to the

petitioner and for any other writ/writs,

order/orders which the petitioner may found to

be entitled in the facts and circumstances of

the case.”

2. Counsel for the petitioner by referring to the order as

contained in Letter No. 205 dated 27.02.2025, submits that on the

basis of certain anomalies in the pay fixation, the amount to the

tune of Rs. 6,02,768/- has been quantified for recovery but before

quantifying such amounts, no such proceedings known to the

service jurisprudence, is said to have ever been adopted, and

despite there being no misrepresentation on behalf of this

petitioner, such amounts have been directed to be recovered from

this petitioner after his retirement.

3. It is next submitted that anomalies in the pay fixation,

which is being shown for the purpose of making recovery, starts

from the period 2016 till the date of retirement on 31.01.2025. The

recovery cannot be made, if there is no representation, and as also

from the persons, who are low paid, especially Class-IV and Class-

III employees. It is the case of the petitioner that in view of the

judgment rendered in the case of State of Punjab and others vs.

Rafiq Masih White Washer & Ors. reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334

##PAGE3##

Patna High Court CWJC No.13011 of 2025 dt.31-01-2026

3/5

the recovery is impermissible when excess payment has been

made for a period in excess of five years. The relevant para of the

aforesaid judgement is reproduced as under:-

“18. It is not possible to postulate all

situations of hardship which would govern

employees on the issue of recovery, where

payments have mistakenly been made by the

employer, in excess of their entitlement. Be that

as it may, based on the decisions referred to

hereinabove, we may, as a ready reference,

summarise the following few situations,

wherein recoveries by the employers, would be

impermissible in law:

(i) Recovery from the employees

belonging to Class III and Class IV service (or

Group C

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top