Jharkhand High Court

Dr. Amitabha Chakrabarty vs The State Of Jharkhand Through Chief ... on 27 November, 2025

Author: Deepak Roshan

Bench: Deepak Roshan

                                              2025:JHHC:35390


IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
          W.P. (S) No. 3789 of 2020
                         ---------

Dr. Amitabha Chakrabarty, aged about 68 years, son of Late R.N. Chakrabarty, resident of Flat No. 30, 201, Maniktala Main Road, Surendranath Housing Society, Kankurgachi, P.O. Kankurgachi, P.S. Kankurgachi, District Kolkata (West Bengal). ....Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Jharkhand Mantralaya, Project Bhawan, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi.

2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Health, Medical Education & Family Welfare, Government of Jharkhand, Jharkhand Mantralaya, Project Bhawan, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi.

3. The Joint Secretary, Department of Health, Medical Education & Family Welfare, Government of Jharkhand, Jharkhand Mantralaya, Project Bhawan, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi.

4. The Deputy Secretary, Department of Health, Medical Education & Family Welfare, Government of Jharkhand, Jharkhand Mantralaya, Project Bhawan, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi.

5. The Director-in-Chief, Department of Health, Medical Education & Family Welfare, Government of Jharkhand, Jharkhand Mantralaya, Project Bhawan, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi.

6. The Principal Accountant General (A & E), Office of the Accountant General, having its Office at North Office Para, P.O. Doranda, P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi.

7. Mahatma Gandhi Memorial Medical College, through its Principal, having its office at Jamshedpur, P.O. MGM, P.S. MGM, District East Singhbhum. .... Respondents

---------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

---------

2025:JHHC:35390

For the Petitioners: Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Adv Mr. Arpan Mishra, Adv Mr. Ankit Vishal, Adv For the Respondent : Mr. Arun Kr. Dubey, A.C. to G.P.-III Mr. Sudarshan Shrivastava, Adv

---------

C.A.V. ON: 30.10.2025 PRONOUNCED ON:27 /11/2025

1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. The present writ petition has been preferred for the

following reliefs:-

a. For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing of the notification as contained in Memo No. 09/Niji- 04-08/2018 60 (9) dated 20.02.2020 issued under the signature of Principal Secretary, Departmental of Health and Family Welfare, Government of Jharkhand, whereby and whereunder:-

(i) The petitioner has been retrospectively retired with effect from 31.12.2011 i.e. on attainment of age of 60 years and further the petitioner would be entitled for pensionary benefits with effect from 01.01.2012.;

(ii) The petitioner would not be entitled for Dynamic Assured Career Progression benefits and the benefits granted vide notification no. 288(9) dated 22.06.2017 stands cancelled.

AND

b. For issuance of a further writ, order or directions for quashing the Letter as contained in Memo No. 1572 dated 18.03.2020, whereby and whereunder directions has been issued to the Mahatma Gandhi Memorial Medical College, Jamshedpur, for recovery of excess salary paid to the petitioner between 01.01.2012 to 31.12.2016 and Leave Encashment paid in excess;

AND

2025:JHHC:35390

c. For issuance of a further writ, order or directions for quashing the letter as contained in Memo No. 191 dated 09.06.2020 issued by the Office of the Principal Accountant General (A&E), Jharkhand, whereby and whereunder a direction has been issued for recovery of all retiral benefits to the tune of Rs. 24,12,799/-drawn as salaries, pensionary benefits after 31.12.2011;

And / Or

d. For any other relief or reliefs for which the petitioner is legally entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case.

3. Briefly stated, the petitioner was appointed on the post

of Tutor in Physiology on 20.12.1974 and gave his joining on

06.01.1975. The petitioner was promoted to the post of

Assistant Professor on 21.05.1983. Thereafter, the petitioner

was promoted to the post of Associate Professor on

08.04.2004.

By a Notification dated 17.07.2010, the age of

superannuation of Teachers of Medical Education cadre as

well as the Teachers of RINPAS, Ranchi was enhanced from

60 years to 62 years. The benefits of the same was extended to

the petitioner. Subsequently, by a Resolution dated

23.07.2011 the age of superannuation of Medical Teaching

Cadre was enhanced from 60 to 65 years. By a Corrigendum

dated 23.06.2012 it was clarified that all the Medical Officers,

Dentist and all the Teachers in the Teaching Department of

the Medical Colleges and the Hospitals of the State should be

2025:JHHC:35390

read as Medical Teachers/Officers.

The Notifications dated 17.07.2010, Resolution dated

23.07.2011 and Corrigendum dated 23.06.2012 was issued by

the Department of Health, Medical Education and Family

Welfare, Government of Jharkhand.

Further, by a Notification dated 15.01.2016, the services

of the petitioner were confirmed with effect from 20.12.1976.

The petitioner was granted the benefit of Dynamic Assured

Career Progression (D.A.C.P.) by a Notification dated

22.06.2017 with effect from 01.09.2008 (Notional) and

financial benefits with effect from 01.04.2009 in the pay scale

of 37400-67000 with Grade Pay of Rs. 10,000.

The petitioner had retired from services on 31.12.2016

from the post of Professor (M.G.M. Medical College,

Jamshedpur) in Physiology Department.

4. By a Notification dated 02.07.2019, one of the employee

namely Debabrata Dasgupta (the then Associate Professor,

Biochemistry Department) was retrospectively made to

superannuate with effect from 31.12.2013 on the ground that

he did not possess the M.B.B.S. Degree and he has taken

D.A.C.P. benefits similar to M.B.B.S. Degree Holder Medical

Teacher. Further, it was alleged that Debabrata Dasgupta was

using prefix "Dr." before his name and by using the same he

2025:JHHC:35390

continued in service beyond 60 years of age. It was brought to

the Notice of the authorities that similarly situated persons

including the petitioner has taken the benefit on the basis of

enhancement of age of superannuation.

Debabrata Dasgupta filed a writ petition bearing W.P.(S)

No. 3650 of 2019 challenging the Notification dated

02.07.2019 issued by the Department of Health, Medical

Education and Family Welfare, Government of Jharkhand.

In view of the aforesaid facts particularly the case of

Debabrata Dasgupta, it was brought to the Notice of the

authorities concerned that the petitioner has also derived

benefits of age enhancement in spite of not holding the

M.B.B.S. Degree and using "Dr" as a prefix before his name.

Further the benefits of D.A.C.P. has also been extended to

him.

5. The Department concerned on noticing the said fact

issued a Notification dated 20.02.2020 by which the

petitioner has been retrospectively made to retire with effect

from 31.12.2011 i.e. on attaining the age of 60 years and

further the petitioner was entitled for pensionary benefits

with effect from 01.01.2012. Further, by virtue of Notification

dated 20.02.2020 the benefits of D.A.C.P. granted to the

petitioner stood cancelled and a letter dated 18.03.2020 and

2025:JHHC:35390

09.06.2020 wherein a direction has been issued to the

M.G.M. Medical College, Jamshedpur and Principal

Accountant General respectively for recovery of the excess

amount paid to the petitioner between the period from

01.01.2012 to 13.12.2016. The amount was also computed for

recovery. The Notification dated 20.02.2020, letter dated

18.03.2020 and 09.06.2023 are under challenge in the

present writ petition.

6. During the pendency of the writ petition, since, there

was no interim order for stay of the recovery amount, the

Department has recovered the amount to the tune of Rs.

15,59,167/- between the period from 01.03.2021 to

31.10.2025. The State Government has filed their Counter

Affidavit and has stated that the petitioner had Ph.D. Degree

in particularly subject due to which the prefix "Dr." was used

before his name and due to the said fact the Department was

under the impression that the petitioner had qualification of

M.B.B.S. which was contrary to the Service Rules.

The State Government has relied upon a Resolution

dated 08.11.2018 of the Finance Department to recover the

excess amount paid to the petitioner.

7. The State Government has further filed a

Supplementary Counter Affidavit and has stated that the

2025:JHHC:35390

Notification dated 17.07.2010, 23.07.2011 was for the Medical

Officers working in the Health Service Cadre of the State,

Dentist and Doctors of the Medical Education Cadre working

in the Medical Colleges and Hospitals of the State. It was

further stated in the Supplementary Counter Affidavit that

the petitioner is not the Doctor, rather he is a M.Sc. Degree

Holder in Biochemistry and the said Notification/Resolution

shall not be applicable to the petitioner.

8. On perusal of the Notification dated 17.07.2010,

23.07.2011 and Corrigendum dated 23.06.2012, I find that

the Notification shall apply to all Teachers in the Medical

Education Cadre and it is not permissible for the State

Government to discriminate the petitioner and deprive him of

the benefits of enhancement of age on the pretext that the

petitioner did not possess the M.B.B.S. Degree.

9. Moreover, the authorities concerned at the very initial

has not raised any dispute with respect to continuation of

service of the petitioner on the basis of the aforesaid

Notification and the impugned orders have been issued after

four years of retirement of the petitioner. The State

Government has failed to produce any relevant Rules that the

M.B.B.S. Doctors can only be given the age enhancement

benefits and other Teachers who are imparting education in

2025:JHHC:35390

the Medical College (Medical Education Service) and having no

Degree of M.B.B.S. cannot be given the benefits of

enhancement of age.

10. Further, no Show Cause Notice or an opportunity of

hearing was given to the petitioner prior to issuance of the

impugned orders. The Show Cause Notice was only given to

the petitioner with respect to non- entitlement of D.A.C.P.

benefits.

The law on recovery is well settled. The Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab versus Rafiq

Masih reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 has held 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 and Group D service).

(ii) Recovery from the retired employees, or the employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery.

(iii) Recovery from the employees, when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery is issued.

(iv) Recovery in cases where an employee has wrongfully been required to discharge duties of a higher post, and has been paid accordingly, even though he should have rightfully been required to work against an inferior post.

(v) In any other case, where the court arrives at the conclusion, that recovery if made from the employee, would be iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary to such an extent, as would far outweigh the equitable balance of the employer's right to recover.

(emphasis supplied)

11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jogeshwar

Sahoo & Others. versus District Cuttack & Others. reported

2025:JHHC:35390

in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 724 referring to its earlier judgment

has held as under:-

"11. In Col. B.J. Akkara (Retd.) v. Government of India this Court considered an identical question as under:

"27. The last question to be considered is whether relief should be granted against the recovery of the excess payments made on account of the wrong interpretation/understanding of the circular dated 7-6- 1999. This Court has consistently granted relief against recovery of excess wrong payment of emoluments/allowances from an employee, if the following conditions are fulfilled (vide Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana [1995 Supp (1) SCC 18 : 1995 SCC (L&S) 248], Shyam Babu Verma v. Union of India [(1994) 2 SCC 521 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 683 : (1994) 27 ATC121], Union of India v. M. Bhaskar [(1996) 4 SCC 416 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 967] and V. Gangaram v. Regional Jt. Director [(1997) 6 SCC 139 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 1652]):

(a) The excess payment was not made on account of any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee.

(b) Such excess payment was made by the employer by applying a wrong principle for calculating the pay/allowance or on the basis of a particular interpretation of rule/order, which is subsequently found to be erroneous...."

12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jagdish

Prasad Singh versus State of Bihar & Others. reported in

2024 SCC OnLine SC 1909 has held as under:-

"21. We firmly believe that any decision taken by the State Government to reduce an employee's pay scale and recover the excess amount cannot be applied retrospectively and that too after a long time gap..."

13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Panchayat &

Rural Development Department & Others versus Santosh

Kumar Shrivastava reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2042 has

held as under:-

"9. This makes it clear that the Courts below were correct in holding that there was no justification for the appellants having not paid the dues rightly belonging to the respondent to him even after the passage of almost three years after the retirement. We may also observe that there was no occasion whatsoever for the Appellant to have conducted re-fixation of pay after retirement of the

2025:JHHC:35390

Respondent and then proceed to recover the excess amount from the retiral dues payable to the latter. This is a well-settled position in law. A Bench of 3 learned Judges in Syed Abdul Qadir v. State of Bihar4, held as follows:

"57. This Court, in a catena of decisions, has granted relief against recovery of excess payment of emoluments/allowances if (a) the excess amount was not paid on account of any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee, and (b) if such excess payment was made by the employer by applying a wrong principle for calculating the pay/allowance or on the basis of a particular interpretation of rule/order, which is subsequently found to be erroneous.

58. The relief against recovery is granted by courts not because of any right in the employees, but in equity, exercising judicial discretion to relieve the employees from the hardship that will be caused if recovery is ordered. But, if in a given case, it is proved that the employee had knowledge that the payment received was in excess of what was due or wrongly paid, or in cases where the error is detected or corrected within a short time of wrong payment, the matter being in the realm of judicial discretion, courts may, on the facts and circumstances of any particular case, order for recovery of the amount paid in excess. See Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana [1995 Supp (1) SCC 18 : 1995 SCC (L&S) 248], Shyam Babu Verma v. Union of India [(1994) 2 SCC 521 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 683 : (1994) 27

ATC 121], Union of India v. M. Bhaskar [(1996) 4 SCC 416 :

1996 SCC (L&S) 967], V. Gangaram v. Director [(1997) 6 SCC 139 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 1652], Col. B.J. Akkara (Retd.) v. Govt. of India [(2006) 11 SCC 709 : (2007) 1 SCC (L&S) 529], Purshottam

Lal Das v. State of Bihar [(2006) 11 SCC 492 : (2007) 1 SCC (L&S) 508], Punjab National Bank v. Manjeet Singh [(2006) 8 SCC 647 : (2007) 1 SCC (L&S) 16] and Bihar SEB v.

Bijay

Bhadur [(2000) 10 SCC 99 : 2000 SCC (L&S) 394].

(emphasis supplied)

59. Undoubtedly, the excess amount that has been paid to the appellant teachers was not because of any misrepresentation or fraud on their part and the appellants also had no knowledge that the amount that was being paid to them was more than what they were entitled to. ..."

The exceptional scenarios provided in the judgment extracted supra undoubtedly are not of application in the present case."

14. Having regards to the aforesaid discussion, I find that,

there is no fault, fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the

petitioner and the action on the part of the State is certainly

2025:JHHC:35390

arbitrary and going to cause great social and economic

hardship to the petitioner.

15. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the

impugned orders dated 20.02.2020, 18.03.2020 and

09.06.2020 are hereby set-aside. The respondents are directed

to refund the amount recovered from the petitioner and are

restrained f r o m r e c o v e r i n g an y am o u nt f ur t he r a n d