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) 627

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Ritesh Kumar, J
Rajendra Prasad Yadav – Appellant
Versus
The Chairman-Cum-Managing Director – Respondent
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.598 of 2023



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ranjeet Tiwary, Chandra Bhushan Upadhyay
For the Respondents: Vinay Kirti Singh, Vivek Prasad, Pratiyush Kumar

Recovery of excess monetary gains from retired employees or Group C/D employees is impermissible in law if the payment was made without any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee.

Headnote:The petitioner, a retired Group C employee (Assistant operator/Technician Grade-III), challenged the recovery of Rs. 41,747 from his pension. The recovery was initiated by the respondent-Power Company due to an alleged wrong fixation of the 3rd MACP benefit, which was granted from 16.05.2012 instead of 16.05.2014. The court found that the excess payment was made without any misrepresentation or fraud by the petitioner. The primary issue was whether the employer is entitled to recover excess payments from a retired employee belonging to Group C service. Relying on the ratio in State of Punjab and Ors Vs. Rafiq Masih (white Washer) and Ors and Thomas Daniel Vs. State of Kerala, the court reasoned that recovery from retired employees or those in Class III and IV service is impermissible in law if the payment was not obtained through fraud or misrepresentation, as such recovery would be iniquitous and arbitrary. The present writ petition is allowed in aforementioned terms.

Table of Content
1. facts regarding the recovery of excess macp payments from a retired group c employee. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. respondent's justification for recovery based on the date of eligibility for 3rd macp. (Para 5 , 6 , 7)
3. legal prohibition of recovery from retired or group c/d employees absent fraud. (Para 8 , 9 , 10)
4. quashing of the recovery order and direction for refund of the recovered amount. (Para 11 , 12 , 13)

ORAL JUDGMENT

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The present writ petition has been filed for the following relief(s):-

“(i) To quash the letter bearing Letter No. 104 dated 29.12.2020 issued by the Respondent No. 5 the Electric Superintending Engineer, Barauni Tharmal Power Station Cell, Bihar State Power Generation Co. Ltd., Patna whereby and whereunder the recovery of Rs. 41,747/- has been due from the pension of the petitioner in consonance with the office order No. 39 dated 28.02.2020 and Office order No. 21 dated 17.01.2020 issued by order Secretary Bihar State Power Generation Co. Ltd. Patna.

(ii) For respondent be directed to pay aforesaid recovered amount Rs. 41,747 to the petitioner with 12 percent compound interest since date of recovery to till date of payment.

(iii) for any other relief(s) for which the petitioner may be found entitled to in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.”

3. At the outset, the learned counsel for the petitioner submit that the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant operator/Technician Grade-III, Group “C” post on 16.05.1984 and gave his joining at Barauni Thermal Power Station, Begusarai.

4. The petitioner superannuated from services of the respondent-Power Company w.e.f. 31.10.2018, while working as operator at the same station i.e. B.T.P.S. Cell Barauni, Begusarai. It is further case of the petitioner that vide letter No. 104 dated 29.12.2020 issued under the signature of Electrical Superintending Engineer, B.T.P.S. Cell, Barrack No. 04, Punaichak, Patna it has been informed that on account of change in date of ACP a fresh calculation has been made and it has been found that RS. 41,747/- is recoverable from the petitioner on account of wrong fixation of pay. It has further been submitted that the petitioner was granted the benefit of ACP by letter dated 31.03.2014 issued under the signature of the Senior Manager (Personnel), Bihar State Power Generation Company Limited, Barauni and the said order was issued on the recommendation of the Screening committee, which was duly constituted in consonance with the provision contained in Resolution No. 76 dated 07.05.2012 issued by the respondent- Power Company, but even then recovery of Rs. 41,747/- has been made from the pension amount of the petitioner. The petitioner filed a representation before the Chairman-Cum- Managing Director, Bihar State Power Holding Company Limited, Patna on 31.08.2022 but no action has been taken on the same.

5. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 02 to 05 whereby it has been contended that vide letter dated 31.03.2014 issued by the Assistant Personnel Officer, Barauni Thermal Power Station, Begusarai benefits of 3rd MACP was granted to the petitioner w.e.f. 16.05.2012 and later on it was found that the same has been wrongly granted to the petitioner w.e.f. 16.05.2012 instead of 16.05.2014, since the petitioner was found eligible for grant of the said benefits w.e.f. 16.05.2014, therefore by the impugned office order contained in Memo No. 104 dated 29.12.2020 has been issued.

6. It is further contended on behalf of the respondent-Power Company that in view of clause 3 of the resolution No. 76 dated 07.05.2012 the benefits of 1st, 2nd & 3rd MACP was to be granted to employees/officers of the erstwhile Board after completion of 10, 20 & 30 years of service respectively from the date of appointment, except the Engineer of General/GTO cadre of the Board and since the petitioner was appointed on 16.05.1984, the

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