2025:JHHC:22869 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P (S). No. 7087 of 2013 ------- 1(A) Savitri Devi, wife of late Raghunath Ram 1(B) Dibya Devi @ Dibya Rani, d/o. late Raghunath Ram 1(C) Mahi Kumari, d/o. late Raghunath Ram 1(D) Rachit Kumar, s/o. late Raghunath Ram All residents of village Dahugut, P.O. & P.S. Khunti, District Khunti. ……….. Petitioners Versus 1. State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary, Secretariat, P.O. & Dist. Ranchi. 2. Special Officer, in the office of Government of Jharkhand, at Raj Bhawan, District Ranchi. 3. Secretary to the Govt. of Jharkhand State at Ranchi, Raj Bhawan, Dist. Ranchi. 4. Joint Secretary to the Govt. of Jharkhand, Raj Bhawan, P.O., P.S. and District Ranchi. ……….. Respondents ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN For the Petitioner : Mr. M.K. Laik, Sr. Advocate Ms. M. Patra, Advocate For the Resp.-State : Mr. Kunal Chandra Suman, AC to GP-II ---- 17/ 07.08.2025 The instant application has been preferred by the petitioners praying for a direction upon the respondent-authorities to pay the amount deducted (recovered) against the original petitioner from his account of leave encashment and gratuity and for quashing the office order, if any, issued therefore and also for issuance of other appropriate writ(s) as this Court may deem fit. . 2. During the pendency of this writ application, the original petitioner died and his legal heirs were substituted at his place, who are the present petitioners. 3. Briefly stated, the original petitioner was posted on contractual basis in the office Raj Bhawan as Khansama as he was an ex-army serviceman. 4. The grievance of the original-petitioner is that from his leave encashment and gratuity, huge amount has been deducted without giving him any opportunity of hearing. 2025:JHHC:22869 2 5. Learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioners submit that the issue is no more res-integra as has been settled in the case of State of Punjab vs. Rafiq Masih (whitewasher) & Ors.1 that from Class-III and Class- IV employees, no recovery can been made after retirement provided that the extra amount has not been paid at his instance. 6. Ld. Sr. Counsel further submits that the payment which was made to the original petitioner earlier was not at his behest and no fraud has been committed by the original-petitioner in getting the said amount. Thus, order dated 04.05.2013, whereby it was directed by the concerned respondent that Rs.1,37,396/- has already been recovered and the petitioner was asked to deposit Rs.14,604/- which he did, is fit to be quashed. 7. He further contended that on the one hand, no show-cause notice was given to the original-petitioner and on the other hand, payment has been recovered suo moto by the respondents. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents relies upon the counter- affidavit and submits that pursuant to the order dated 09.04.2007, the pay of the ex-servicemen posted in Raj Bhawan/Governor's Secretariat, Ranchi was fixed and accordingly payment of their salaries was made to them. 9. Learned counsel further submits that during verification of fixation of pay of the ex-servicemen consequent upon the revised scale of the sixth pay Commission w.e.f. 01.01.2006 by the Finance Department, it was found that the pay of the ex-servicemen posted in Raj Bhawan/Governor's Secretariat, Ranchi was incorrectly fixed giving pay protection ignoring their pensions. Their pay should have been fixed under Rule 161 (b) of the Bihar Pension Rules which reads as under:- "A government servant on re-employment should draw the initial pay of the post unless government sanction advance increment under Rule 83 of the Bihar and Orissa Service Code provided always that the sum total of pay plus pension does not exceed the substantive pay last drawn by him before discharge. Where the sum total exceeds the substantive pay only so much of the pension may be allowed to be drawn as not to make the total of pension plus the initial pay of the post exceed the substantive pay last drawn." 1 (2014) 4 SCC 334 2025:JHHC:22869 3 Thus, the pay of the ex-servicemen posted in Raj Bhawan, Ranchi has wrongly been fixed against Rules 161 (b) of the Bihar/Jharkhand Pension Rules. 10. He further submits that in the light of the concurrence of the Finance Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, the pay of the Ex-servicemen posted in Raj Bhawan, Ranchi including the writ petitioner in the revised scale of the sixth Pay Commission was re- fixed and order for recovery of the excess payment made to them due to incorrect fixation of their pay against Rules 161 (b) of the Bihar Pension Rule from their salaries every month was fixed. Learned counsel further submits that due to wrong/incorrect fixation of the original-petitioner's pay, as per the concurrence of the Finance Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, a sum of Rs.1,51,996/-(Rupees one lac fifty one thousand, nine hundred and ninety six only) could not be recovered from him as the petitioner superannuated 31.01.2013, so a sum on of Rs.1,37,396/- (Rupees one lac thirty seven thousand three hundred and ninety six only) has been recovered from his retiral benefits and the balance of Rs. 14,604/- (Rupees fourteen thousand nine hundred and six only) has been deposited by him vide N/R No. 009124 dated 05.06.2013. 11. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the only stand of the respondents is that the pay was wrongly fixed but they have not stated anywhere in the entire counter-affidavit that the petitioner was instrumental in wrong fixation of pay. Further, they have not stated anywhere as to whether any show-cause notice was given to him. 12. In other words, it is an admitted fact that on the one hand; no show-cause notice was given to the petitioner before deduction and on the other hand, wrong fixation of pay, whatsoever, has been done by the respondents themselves and petitioner has not committed any misrepresentation of facts, etc. 2025:JHHC:22869 4 13. Having regard to the aforesaid discussion, the instant writ application stands allowed and the impugned order 04.05.2013 (Annexure-5), is hereby, quashed and set aside. 14. The respondents are directed to pay back the entire recovered amount of Rs.1,37,396/- (already recovered at the time of issuance of order dated 04.05.2013) and Rs.14,604/- which was deposited by the original-petitioner i.e. total Rs.1,52,000/-. 15. The respondents are directed to pay-back the aforesaid amount within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order with a simple interest of 6% p.a. from the date of recovery till the date of actual payment. 16. It is made clear that if the aforesaid amount along with interest will not be paid to the present petitioners within the aforesaid stipulated period, the present petitioners would be entitled for compound interest at the same rate of interest on the entire amount from the date of entitlement till the date of actual payment, which will commence from the end of 8 weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 17. Accordingly, the instant writ application stands allowed. Pending I.A., if any, also stands closed. (Deepak Roshan, J.) Kunal