Patna High Court
Pushpa Kumari vs The State Of Bihar on 25 July, 2025
Author: Harish Kumar
Bench: Harish Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5871 of 2024
======================================================
Pushpa Kumari, Wife of Vijay Kumar, Resident of Ward No. 15, Mohalla-
Shanti Nagar, Police Station- Dumra, District- Sitamarhi, PIN-853301.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar Through the Additional Chief Secretary, Department
Education, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Director, Primary Education, Education Department, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
3. The District Education Officer, Sitamarhi.
4. The district Programme Officer (Establishment), Sitamarhi.
5. The Head Master-cum-Drawing and Disbursing Officer, Middle School,
Rampur Patori East, Dumra, District- Sitamarhi.
6. The Treasury Officer, Sitamarhi.
7. The Principal Accountant General (A and E), Bihar at Patna.
8. The Senior Accounts Officer, Office of the accountant General, Bihar at
Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dhanendra Chaubey, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Akash Raj, AC to GA-5
For the A.G. : Mrs. Nivedita Nirvikar, Sr. Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 25-07-2025
Heard the parties.
2. The petitioner before this Court, a retired Head
Mistress, who superannuated on 31.01.2022 from Primary
School, Rampur Paroti Dumra, District Sitamarhi has
approached this Court seeking quashing of the order, directing
for recovery of Rs. 6,87,434/- from the death-cum-retiral
gratuity, issued under the signature of respondent no. 6 on
20.05.2022
.
Patna High Court CWJC No.5871 of 2024 dt.25-07-2025
3. From the materials available on record it appears
that the petitioner was duly appointed as a Primary Teacher on
20.05.1988 and subsequently after having found her satisfactory
service, she was promoted to the post of Head Mistress vide
letter no. 2741 dated 22.10.2016. Finally the petitioner
superannuated on 31.01.2022. The services of the petitioner is
said to be unblemished and at no point of time she was subjected
to any departmental or judicial proceeding. On being
superannuated the sanction letter was forwarded, based upon
which the pension payment order has also been issued, the copy
of which is placed on record as Annexure P/2 to the writ petition
dated 21.03.2022.
4. Learned Advocate for the petitioner contended that
after the issuance of the P.P.O., all of a sudden the petitioner
came to know that the concerned respondent authorities have
taken a decision to recover an amount of Rs. 6,87,434/- from the
death-cum-retiral gratuity. On being aggrieved, the petitioner
has approached this Court.
5. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that
apart from the settled proposition of law that no recovery can be
made from retired employees as has been held in the case of
The State of Punjab & Ors. vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer)
Patna High Court CWJC No.5871 of 2024 dt.25-07-2025
[(2015) 4 SCC 334] and further in the case of Thomas Daniel
vs. State of Kerala & Ors. [(2022) SCC Online SC 536], the
very basis upon which the respondent authorities are intending
to recover the amount has came to be settled by this Court in
C.W.J.C. No. 2783 of 2021, where the Court has held the
recovery as unsustainable.
6. In pursuant to the order of this Court the respondent
authorities have also come out with office order as contained in
memo no. 242 dated 20.01.2023, the copy of which is placed on
record as Annexure P/4. A conscious decision has been taken in
the light of the order of this Court dated 23.09.2022 in the case
of Chandrakanta & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.
(C.W.J.C. No. 2783 of 2021) that no recovery shall be made
from the concerned teachers, who has been initially allowed the
benefit of Schedule II after making fixation of their pay scale.
7. Learned Advocate for the State submitted that in
fact on account of wrong fixation of salary, the petitioner has
been extended excess salary to her entitlement and after proper
verification, it has been found that an amount to the tune of Rs.
6,87,434/- is found recoverable. A supplementary counter
affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent no. 6. The
position is admitted to the extent of the decision rendered by this
Patna High Court CWJC No.5871 of 2024 dt.25-07-2025
Court in C.W.J.C. No. 2783 of 2021, and consequent upon
issuance of the office order as contained in memo no. 242 dated
20.01.2023, however, it has been submitted that since the
aforesaid judgment does not state that the recovery which has
already been made prior to the judgment, whether the recovered
amount is required to be returned back or not.
8. Having heard the learned Advocate for the
respective parties, this Court is of the opinion that the decision
taken by the concerned authorities to recover the amount is
completely in the teeth of the order passed by this Court in
C.W.J.C. No. 2783 of 2021. It is made clear that in case any
decision is passed by a Constitutional Court, it applied
retrospectively meaning thereby they apply to past action and
events, unless the decision explicitly ruled that it will only apply
otherwise. However, the Courts may choose to apply a decision
prospectively to avoid undue hardships or to prevent unsettling
settled matter. Recently the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of Kanishk Sinha & Anr. vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr.,
2025 SCC Online SC 443 clarified that a ruling remains
applicable retrospectively, unless expressly stated to have a
prospective effect. The Court in no uncertain terms observed
that :-
Patna High Court CWJC No.5871 of 2024 dt.25-07-2025
"Now the law of prospective and retrospective
operation is absolutely clear. Whereas, the law made by the
legislature is always prospective in nature unless it has been
specifically stated in the statute itself about its retrospective
operation, the reverse is true for the law which is laid down by a
constitutional Court, or law as it is interpreted by the Court. The
judgment of the Court will always be retrospective in nature,
unless the judgment itself specifically states that the judgment
will operate prospectively. The prospective operation of a
judgment is normally done to avoid any unnecessary burden to
persons or to avoid undue hardships to those who had
bonafidely done something with the understanding of the law as
it existed at the relevant point of time. Further, it is done not to
unsettle something which has long been settled, as that would
cause injustice to many".
9. Once the issue has already been set at rest by a
Bench of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 2783 of 2021, the recovery
made by the respondent cannot be held to be sustainable.
Moreover, this Court also finds that in innumerable occasion,
the Apex Court has made it clear that the unilateral recovery
from the retired employees is not tenable.
10 . On both these grounds, this Court finds that the
Patna High Court CWJC No.5871 of 2024 dt.25-07-2025
amount deducted by the respondent authorities from the death-
cum-retiral gratuity is unsustainable.
11. The respondent authorities are directed to restore
the amount of Rs. 6,87,434/-, preferably within a period of 8
weeks' from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this
order.
12. The writ petition stands allowed.
(Harish Kumar, J)
supratim/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 30.07.2025
Transmission Date NA
