Patna High Court
Sangeeta Kumari vs The State Of Bihar on 5 August, 2025
Author: Harish Kumar
Bench: Harish Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11081 of 2024
======================================================
Sangeeta Kumari Wife of Late Rajeev Ranjan, Resident of Village-
Ekangararai, Dhawan, P.O. and P.S.- Ekangarsarai, District- Nalanda, at
present resided at Ranjan Niwas, Jehanabad Road Ekangarsarai, P.S.-
Ekangarsarai, District- Nalanda.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Additional Chief Secretary, Rural Development
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The District Magistrate, Nalanda.
3. The Block Development Officer, Chandi Block at Nalanda.
4. The Nazir, Chandi Block at Nalanda.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Akhilesh Dutta Verma
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Government Pleader 25
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 05-08-2025
Heard the parties.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved with the order
contained in Memo No. 1828 dated 14.11.2022, whereby an
amount of Rs.11,13,020.20/- was ordered to be recovered from
the petitioner, who is a hapless widow of the erstwhile
employee. The petitioner further sought quashing of the order as
contained in Letter No. 36 dated 05.01.2024 as also the
consequential letter No. 243 dated 03.02.2024 whereby an
amount of Rs.15,59,933.07/- is ordered to be recovered from the
family pension account of the petitioner.
Patna High Court CWJC No.11081 of 2024 dt.05-08-2025
2/12
3. Before proceeding further in the matter, learned
Advocate for the petitioner made it clear that in the light of the
order contained in Memo No. 1828 dated 14.11.2022, the
petitioner being a hapless widow without understanding the
consequences, under compelling circumstances and on protest,
deposited the amount. However, when the subsequent impugned
order came to be passed in the year 2024, both the orders are put
to challenge.
3. The erstwhile employee, the husband of the
petitioner had joined the services in the year 2000 and thereafter
he worked in so many offices and finally he was posted as Nazir
in Chandi Block in the district of Nalanda, where he worked
from 2017 to 2021. While the erstwhile employee was
discharging his duty, due to serious renal ailment he died on
18.02.2021
on account of multiple organ failure.
4. The aforesaid fact has been acknowledged by the
Department. After the sudden demise of the erstwhile employee,
in harness, the petitioner has been paid the amount under the
head of GPF, Gratuity and Group Insurance. However, she has
not been allowed pension and other admissible dues for which
she was moving behind the authorities concerned. In the
meanwhile, all of a sudden the petitioner was served with letter
Patna High Court CWJC No.11081 of 2024 dt.05-08-2025
3/12
No. 1828 dated 14.11.2022 whereby an amount of
Rs.11,13,020.20/- was ordered to be recovered.
5. Learned Advocate for the petitioner contended that
when the petitioner met the respondent No. 3, she was
threatened to face consequences that in case of failure on her
part to deposit the amount, she would be deprived from the
family pension, besides initiation of proceeding. Finally on
such huge pressure, she deposited an amount to the tune of
Rs.11,13,020.20/- under impression that No Dues Certificate
shall be given to her. After depositing the afore noted amount,
family pension came to be started in favour of the petitioner.
The dispute, if any, in the submission of the petitioner came to
be settled, but again after a period of one year and three months,
the respondent authorities came out with Letter No. 36 dated
05.01.2024 and Letter No. 243 dated 03.02.2024 directing the
petitioner to deposit the amount of Rs.15,59,993.07/-, making it
clear that recovery shall be made through family pension of the
petitioner by way of installment.
6. Learned Advocate for the petitioner assailing the
action and orders of the concerned respondents has submitted
that there could not be any recovery from the dead employee
once he is no more alive to rebut the allegation and the
Patna High Court CWJC No.11081 of 2024 dt.05-08-2025
4/12
evidences based upon which the respondent authorities have
come out with the order for recovery. He further submits that
since the petitioner is a widow of the erstwhile employee who is
no more alive and died in harness; thus any recovery from the
pensionary benefits would be in the teeth of the mandate of the
Apex Court in the case of The State of Punjab & Ors. vs. Rafiq
Masih (While Washer) [(2015) 4 SCC 334. Reliance has also
been placed on a Bench decision of this Court in the case of
Shashi Bhushan Pandey vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. [CWJC
No. 8569 of 2024] wherein in identical facts, the Court
deprecated the action of the authorities concerned in making
recovery of the amount from pensionary benefits, is the
contention of learned Advocate.
7. Mr. Ramadhar Singh, learned Advocate for the
State dispelling the afore noted contention has submitted that
on the basis of initial verification done, an amount of
Rs.11,13,020.20/- has been recovered and deposited in the
Government account. However, in course of detailed scrutiny of
the vouchers and account registers, it was detected that the
amount of several vouchers has been entered in the account
register twice and after that it was found that an amount of
Rs.5,89,368.07 was shortage in amount of vouchers and
Patna High Court CWJC No.11081 of 2024 dt.05-08-2025
5/12
Rs.9,70,565/- was shortage in the account register related to the
election expenses and therefore an additional recoverable
amount came to Rs.15,59,933.07/-. Accordingly, action has been
initiated for recovery of the public money for Rs.15,59,933.07/-.
It is the contention of the learned Advocate for the State that the
husband of the petitioner has committed misappropriation of
huge public money and since he is no more alive, the petitioner
is liable to deposit such misappropriated amount.
8. Before parting with the case, it would be pertinent
to observe that the entire action for recovery of the alleged
unadjusted or misappropriated amount has been initiated after
the death of the erstwhile employee and admittedly there had
never been any show cause notice or proceeding with respect to
the alleged default on the part of the erstwhile employee. Thus,
the decision to recover the amount is unilateral based upon the
document/evidence which could not have been accepted or
confronted by the petitioner’s husband. In an identical situation
in the case of Smt. Indu Devi v. State of Bihar & Ors. [2004(1)
PLJR 162], where the amount to the tune of Rs.1,39,282/- was
ordered to be recovered on account of non handing over of the
charge of certain articles before the death of the employee, who
died in harness, the Court while allowing the writ petition with
Patna High Court CWJC No.11081 of 2024 dt.05-08-2025
6/12
cost held “In my opinion, after the death of
employee/Government servant recovery in such manner is not
permissible. It is only permissible by getting a decree of Civil
Court of competent jurisdiction otherwise it would be violative
of principles of natural justice and fair play, moreso, because it
is not possible for the widow to dispute such recovery on merit
for want of proper opportunities, in the facts and circumstances
aforementioned, this Court finds that the attitude of the Director
in discharging liability of paying death-cum-retiral dues to the
widow is gross callous and this Court strongly deprecates his
such attitude”
9. Further in the case of Smt. Shanti Choubey v. The
State of Bihar & Ors. [2004 (4) PLJR 236] the Court, in the
matter where the husband of the petitioner died in harness,
without making adjustment of the amount given as an advance,
and thus the respondent State authorities came out with an order
directing for recovery of such amount from the pensionary
benefits, while setting aside the impugned order of recovery has
categorically observed that the recovery is not permissible after
the retirement of government servant from service, except
taking recourse to the provisions, contained in rule 43(b) of the
Bihar Pension Rules and that too only if the case is covered by
Patna High Court CWJC No.11081 of 2024 dt.05-08-2025
7/12
the rider clause of the said provision, which provides that (a)
such departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the
Government servant was on duty either before retirement or
during re-employment; (i) shall not be instituted save with the
sanction of the State Government; (ii) shall be in respect of an
event which took place not more than four years before the
institution of such proceedings.
10. It would be relevant to encapsulate para-13 of the
afore noted decision in the case of Smt. Shanti Choubey
(supra), which will have material bearing over the issue raised
before this Court.
“13. I fail to appreciate as to how after the
death of the Government servant, the
Government expects from the widow to
meet such claim of the department when no
step at all was taken during the lifetime of
the deceased Government servant. It is
really shocking that such decision for
recovery is taken after the death of the
Government servant on the pretext of
adjustment sought to be made from the
death-cum-retiral dues payable to the
widow who obviously cannot meet such
claim of the Department that the works for
which advances were taken were not
executed and vouchers/bills were not
produced by the deceased Government
servant during his lifetime.”
11. Now coming to the mandate of the Apex court in
Patna High Court CWJC No.11081 of 2024 dt.05-08-2025
8/12
the case of Rafiq Masih (supra), the Court succinctly held that it
is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship which
would govern the employees on the issue of recovery, where
payments have mistakenly been made by the employer, in
excess of their entitlement. Based on the decisions rendered by
the Apex Court in earlier cases, the Hon’ble Court summarized
the following situations, whereas recovery by the employer
would be held impermissible in law.
“”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, summarize 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.
Patna High Court CWJC No.11081 of 2024 dt.05-08-2025
9/12
(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”.
“(A) If it is from employees belonging
from Class III and Class IV services (or
Group C and Group D service);
(B) If it is from retired employees or the
employees who are due to retire within
one year, of the order of recovery;
(C) If it is 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;
(D) From employees who were
wrongfully made to discharge duties of
higher post and have been paid
accordingly even though they should
have rightfully been required to work
against an inferior post.”
12. Admittedly, in the case in hand, the question and
the dispute as to whether the amount was paid in excess to the
entitlement to the petitioner or could not be adjusted by the
erstwhile employee, but it is obvious that the order has been
issued to recover the same from the family pension of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.11081 of 2024 dt.05-08-2025
10/12
widow of the erstwhile employee, that too, without following
any due process of law.
13. In the case of Rafiq Masih (supra), the Court
while summarizing the situation where the recovery by the
employer would be made impermissible, it has further been
made clear in para-18(v) of the said judgment that 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.
14. The decision afore noted has been passed after
reiterating the decision passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
catena of decisions reported in Syed Abdul Qadir & Ors. vs
State Of Bihar & Ors. [(2009) 3 SCC 475]; Sahib Ram vs.
State of Haryana [(1995) Suppl.1 SCC 18]; Shyam Babu
Verma vs. Union of India [(1994) 2 SCC 521]; V. Ganga Ram
vs. Regional Joint Director & Ors.[(1997) 6 SCC 139];
Purshottam Lal Das vs. State of Bihar [(2006) 11 SCC 492];
Bihar State Electricity Board vs. Bijay Bhadur [(2000) 10
SCC 99]; B.J. Akkara vs. Government of India & Ors.
[(2006) 11 SCC 709].
15. After going through the mandates of the Apex
Patna High Court CWJC No.11081 of 2024 dt.05-08-2025
11/12
Court as well as the decisions of the co-ordinate Bench of this
Court, the action of the respondents directing for recovery of the
amount from the family pension of the petitioner is held to be
impermissible, illegal and unsustainable in law. However, it is
made clear that since the petitioner has deposited the amount of
Rs.11,13,020.20/- in pursuant to the order as contained in Memo
No. 1828 dated 14.11.2022 which has never been questioned
before any authority and the same has been challenged only
after issuance of the order as contained in Letter No. 36 dated
05.01.2024 and further consequential Letter No. 243 dated
03.02.2024, this Court does not interfere with the earlier order
contained in Memo No. 1828 dated 14.11.2022 on account of
the principle of estoppel and waiver. However, the subsequent
order of recovery contained in Letter No. 36 dated 05.01.2024
and consequential Letter No. 243 dated 03.02.2024 are hereby
set aside. The respondents are directed to ensure admissible
family pension along with other due amount if the same has not
been paid till date. Recovery of any amount in pursuant to
Letter No. 36 dated 05.01.2024 and consequential Letter No.
243 dated 03.02.2024 shall also be restored, if any, made by the
respondents, within a period of eight weeks from the date of
receipt/production of a copy of this order.
Patna High Court CWJC No.11081 of 2024 dt.05-08-2025
12/12
16. The writ petition stands allowed partly.
17. There shall be no order as to cost.
(Harish Kumar, J)
Anjani/-
AFR/NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date 11.08.2025 Transmission Date
[ad_1]
Source link