[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Patna High Court
Rajendra Prasad Yadav vs The Chairman-Cum-Managing Director on 4 February, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.598 of 2023
======================================================
Rajendra Prasad Yadav Son of Jatto Yadav Resident of Village and P.O. and
P.S.-Dharhara, District-Munger, Bihar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, Bihar State Power Holding
(Generation) Company Limited Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.
2. The Sr Manager (Finance and Accounts) B.T.P.S. (B.S.P.H.C.) Cell Ltd.
Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.
3. The Executive Engineer (B.T.P.S.) Cell Barauni, Begusarai.
4. The Chief General Manager (N.T.P.C.) barauni, Begusarai.
5. The Electrical Superintending Engineer, Barauni Tharmal Power Station
Cell, Barauni, Begusarai, Bihar State Power Generation Co. Ltd. Vidyut.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ranjeet Tiwary, Advocate
Mr. Chandra Bhushan Upadhyay, Adv
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh, Sr. Adv
For the Respondents BSP(H)CL & Ors : Mr. Vivek Prasad, (SC)
: Mr. Pratiyush Kumar, (AC to SC)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RITESH KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 04-02-2026
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
Patna High Court CWJC No.598 of 2023 dt.04-02-2026
2/9
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
Patna High Court CWJC No.598 of 2023 dt.04-02-2026
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.
Patna High Court CWJC No.598 of 2023 dt.04-02-2026
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, therefore he became eligible for grant
of benefits of 3rd MACP on 16.05.2014 i.e. after completion of
30 years of regular service and therefore the power Company
has rightly granted the benefits of 3rd MACP to the petitioner
with effect from 16.05.2014 instead of 16.05.2012.
7. It has further been contended on behalf of the
respondent-Power Company that based on the said fixation RS.
41,747/- was found recoverable from the petitioner on account
of wrong fixation, since excess payment was made to the
petitioner, therefore, the said amount has rightly been recovered
from the pension amount of the petitioner.
8. Having heard the rival submissions and after
going through the materials available on record, I find that it is
not the case of respondent-Power Company that the petitioner
has been granted the benefits of 3rd ACP w.e.f. 16.05.2012
Patna High Court CWJC No.598 of 2023 dt.04-02-2026
instead of 16.05.2014, on his request or fault or the petitioner
misrepresented in getting the same fixed from 16.05.2012
instead of 16.05.2014. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of State of Punjab and Ors Vs. Rafiq Masih (white Washer)
and Ors reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 , it has been held as
follows:
13. In State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White
Washer)4 wherein this court examined the
validity of an order passed by the State to
recover the monetary gains wrongly
extended to the beneficiary employees in
excess of their entitlements without any
fault or misrepresentation at the behest of
the recipient. This Court considered
situations of hardship caused to an
employee, if recovery is directed to
reimburse the employer and disallowed the
same, exempting the beneficiary employees
from such recovery. It was held thus:
"8. As between two parties, if a
determination is rendered in favour of
the party, which is the weaker of the two,
without any serious detriment to the
other (which is truly a welfare State), the
issue resolved would be in consonance
with the concept of justice, which is
assured to the citizens of India, even in
the Preamble of the Constitution of
Patna High Court CWJC No.598 of 2023 dt.04-02-2026
India. The right to recover being
pursued by the employer, will have to be
compared, with the effect of the recovery
on the employee concerned. If the effect
of the recovery from the employee
concerned would be, more unfair, more
wrongful, more improper, and more
unwarranted, than the corresponding
right of the employer to recover the
amount, then it would be iniquitous and
arbitrary, to effect the recovery. In such
a situation, the employee's right would
outbalance, and therefore eclipse, the
right of the employer to recover.
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).
Patna High Court CWJC No.598 of 2023 dt.04-02-2026
(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."
9. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in the case of Thomas Daniel Vs. State
of Kerala reported in 2022 SCC online SC 536 whereby the
Hon'ble Supreme Court relying upon the different
pronouncements of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India including
the case of State of Punjab & Ors Vs. Rafiq Masih (White
Washer) and Ors came to the conclusion which is as follows:-
Patna High Court CWJC No.598 of 2023 dt.04-02-2026
"14. it is not contended before us that on account of
the misrepresentation or fraud played by the appellant, the
excess amounts have been paid. The appellant has retired on
31.03.1999. In fact, the case of the respondent is that excess
payment was made due to a mistake in interpreting Kerala
Service Rules which was subsequently pointed out by the
Accountant General.
15. Having regard to the above, we are of the view
that an attempt to recover the said increments after passage of
ten years of his retirement is unjustified."
10. Further a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide
its judgment dated 26.03.2025 passed in C.W.J.C. No.
8623/2024 by relying on different pronouncements of Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India and Co-ordinate Benches of this Court
has held in paragraphs no. 8 to 10, which is as follows:-
"8.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in no uncertain
term held that no recovery can be made from
the retired employees, or employees who are
due to retire within one year, of the order or
recovery and when the excess payment has
been made for a period in excess of five years,
before the orderof recovery is issued.
9.In the case of Thomas Daniel (supra) the
Hon'ble Supreme Court also held that in a case
where an employee has been accorded extra
increment and the same has been paid for a
period of more than ten years or more, the
State cannot recover the excess amount paid to
the employee.
Patna High Court CWJC No.598 of 2023 dt.04-02-2026
10.In view of the discussions made
hereinabove, this Court finds substance in the
writ petition. Accordingly, the impugned order
to the extent, whereby the recovery is directed
and consequentially the same has been
recovered, stands quashed and cancelled."
11. In view of the settled legal proposition the order
contained in letter No. 104 dated 29.12.2020 deserves to be set
aside and is accordingly set aside.
12. The respondent authorities are directed to make
payment of the amount recovered from the pension of the
petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/
production of the copy of the order and if the same will not be
paid to the petitioner within the period of four weeks, then the
petitioner will be entitled for interest @ 7% on the said amount
from the date of filing of the present writ petition till its actual
payment and the same will be recovered from the pocket of the
erring officials/employees.
13. The present writ petition is allowed in
aforementioned terms.
(Ritesh Kumar, J)
krishnakant/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 09.02.2026
Transmission Date NA
