2025:JHHC:25465 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S) No.3841 of 2017 …. Manohar Mehra, Son of Late Garib Mehra, Resident of Village – Gurunagar Gangta, Godda, P.O. & P.S. & District- Godda, Jharkhand ……Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Human Resource Development, Ranchi, P.O.-Dhurwa, P.S.-Dhurwa, Dist.- Ranchi, Jharkhand, 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Godda, P.O. & P.S.-Godda, District- Godda, Jharkhand, 3. The District Superintendent of Education-cum-District Programme Officer, Sarve Shiksha Abhiyan, Godda, P.O.+P.S.+ District-Godda, Jharkhand, 4. The Area Education officer, Godda, P.O.+P.S.+District-Godda, Jharkhand, 5. The Block Education Extension Officer, Pathargama, P.O. & P.S.- Pathargama, District- Godda, Jharkhand, 6. The Junior-Engineer, Sarve Shiksha Abhiyan, Pathargama, P.O. & P.S.- Pathargama District-Godda, Jharkhand ……Respondents ----- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Pankaj Kr. Choudhary, Advocate For the State : Mr. Arun Kr. Dubey, AC to GP-III For the JEPC : Mr. Krishna Murari, Advocate …… ORAL JUDGMENT IN COURT Order No.06/29.07.2025 1. This Writ Petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for issuance of appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions or a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order vide Letter No.662 dated 24.05.2017 (Annexure-2) issued under the seal and signature of the Respondent No.3 whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been directed to deposit Rs.2,48,384/- (Rs. Two lakh forty eight thousand three hundred 2025:JHHC:25465 2 eighty four) in the District Office and Rs.35,829/- (Rs.Thirty five thousand eight hundred twenty nine) to the Mining Department through the Bank Draft and be further stay the execution of the order vide Letter No.662 dated 24.05.2017 till the final disposal of this petition as the petitioner has been retired from the service on 31.01.2014 from Middle School Logain, Pathargama-2, District- Godda. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner further prayed for staying of Execution Order dated 24.05.2017, letter no.662 till disposal of this writ petition and for other ancillary reliefs. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for the JEPC. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that this Writ Petition Application has been filed for quashing the order dated 24.05.2017 (i.e. Annexure-2) by which the Respondent No.3 has directed the petitioner to deposit Rs.2,48,384/- (Rs. Two lakh forty eight thousand three hundred eighty four) in the District Office and Rs.35,829/- (Rs.Thirty five thousand eight hundred twenty nine) to the Mining Department through the Bank Draft. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was working as the Headmaster and retired in January 2014 and at that time nothing was due against him. However, the letter no.662 dated 24.05.2017 (Annexure-2) was issued by which the D.S.E-cum-District Program Officer, Jharkhand Siksha Pariyojana Abhiyan (Jharkhand Education Project Council) has informed him to deposit Rs.2,48,384/- (Rs. Two lakh forty eight thousand three hundred eighty four) for not doing the work in the District Office of Respondent No.3 and also to deposit Rs.35,829/- (Rs.Thirty five 2025:JHHC:25465 3 thousand eight hundred twenty nine) to the Mining Department towards taxes. It is submitted that the petitioner was under coercion of the Respondent and had filed Affidavit dated 04.09.2014 by which he has admitted to return the said amount if anything found due as his file for G.P.F had not been processed by Surva Shisksha Abhiyan and hence this writ petition may be allowed. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has submitted that this writ petition is not maintainable as the notice has been issued to the petitioner for returning the amount of civil work. It is submitted that as per the measurement book, it was found that the petitioner had not completed the work of Rs.2,48,384/- (Rs. Two lakh forty eight thousand three hundred eighty four) in the different financial year 2010-11, 2011-12, 2010- 11, 2011-12 and 2007-08 respectively. 7. It is further submitted that the petitioner has himself admitted by filing affidavit on 04.09.2014 for returning the said amount in one lumpsum and has prayed for released of his GPF. It is submitted that from the Measurement Book, which is enclosed as Annexure-A series to Counter Affidavit dated 22.11.2018 at page 31 to 81 the difference amounts which shown by the Junior Engineer on 08.08.2017 also on 24.09.2018. It is submitted that the entire measurement book has been brought on record and on the basis of that measurement book it was found that Rs.2,48,384/- (Rs. Two lakh forty eight thousand three hundred eighty four) was due against the petitioner towards the incomplete civil work and Rs.35,829/- (Rs.Thirty five thousand eight hundred twenty nine) towards the Mining Department which was deposited by the petitioner towards the taxes. Thus, there is no illegality and 2025:JHHC:25465 4 perversity in the notice issued to the petitioner and hence this writ petition may be dismissed. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondent No.3, after adopting the submission of learned counsel for the State, has submitted that this writ petition is not maintainable as it relates to returning the amount of Rs.2,48,384/- (Rs. Two lakh forty eight thousand three hundred eighty four) for not completing the civil work. It is submitted that the petitioner was official Contractor at the relevant time when he was given the work of completing some construction work which was not done and the amount of Rs.2,48,384/- (Rs. Two lakh forty eight thousand three hundred eighty four) was found due against the petitioner for not completing in the different financial year 2010-11, 2011-12, 2010- 11, 2011-12 and 2007-08 respectively. It is submitted that the said amount is not utilized amount and hence the petitioner may be directed to return the said amount. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and from going through the averments made in the writ petition as well as in the counter affidavit filed by the learned State counsel, it would appear that the petitioner was serving as a Headmaster in Middle School, Lougain, Pathergamma-2 and had already retired on 31.01.2014. 10. It further reveals from the letter no.662 dated 24.05.2017 (i.e. Annexure-2) that the petitioner has not completed the work for 2 ACR in the financial year 2010-11 to the extent of Rs.73,156/- and of 4 ACR in the financial year 2011-12 to the extent of Rs.60,117/- and HM Room in the financial year 2010-11 to the extent of Rs.18.351/- and Toilet in the financial year 2011-12 to the extent of Rs.0 and 2 ACR in the financial year 2007-08 to the 2025:JHHC:25465 5 extent of Rs.96,760/- i.e. total amount of Rs.2,48,384/- (Rs. Two lakh forty eight thousand three hundred eighty four) during the said period and Rs.35,829/- (Rs.Thirty five thousand eight hundred twenty nine) towards the Tax to the Mining Department. 11. From the perusal of the memo no.1047 and 09.05.2014 issued by the D.S.E Godda, (Annexure-3) it would appear that the pension of the petitioner was fixed and nothing was found due against this petitioner. 12. It is well settled that after retirement of an employee there is no relationship between an employer and an employee between the parties and the relationship of the employer ceased to exist. 13. It further appears that the period of work was 2011-2012 whereas the show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 24.05.2017 i.e after lapse of more than five (05) years. 14. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 at Para 18 as follows: “Para 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 2025:JHHC:25465 6 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.” 15. It is further evident that is no mis-representation was given by the petitioner at the time when he was retired and no-show cause notice was issued against him for the arrears of the said amount. 16. It appears that even while non-completion of the work of Rs.2,48,384 (Rs. Two lakh forty eight thousand three hundred eighty four), the petitioner was not given opportunity to defend his case and no notice was given to the petitioner by the Respondent. 17. This Court is of the view that so far as the notice by way of letter dated 24.05.2017 (i.e. Annexure-2) issued by the Respondent No.3 i.e. the District Superintendent of Education- cum-District Programme Officer, Sarve Shiksha Abhiyan by demanding Rs.2,48,384/- (Rs. Two lakh forty eight thousand three hundred eighty four) is concerned and the same is completely in violation of Clause-ii and v of paragraph-18 of the judgment passed in the case of State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 and hence the letter dated 24.05.2017 (i.e. the Annexure-2) issued by the Respondent No.3 i.e. the District Superintendent of Education-cum-District Programme Officer, Sarve Shiksha Abhiyan is set aside and the petitioner is not 2025:JHHC:25465 7 required to pay Rs.2,48,384/- (Rs. Two lakh forty eight thousand three hundred eighty four) to the Respondent No.3. 18. However, the petitioner is directed to pay Rs.35,829/- (Rs.Thirty five thousand eight hundred twenty nine) towards taxes to the Mining Department within a period of four (04) weeks before the Department from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment/order. 19. Accordingly, this Writ Petition WP(S) No.3841 of 2017 is allowed in part. (Sanjay Prasad, J.) Nishant/-