2026:JHHC:13487 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S). No. 2085 of 2026 ---------- Kalu Gope, aged about 63 years, son of Yugal Gope, resident of village Karandih, P.O. Bandu, P.S. Ichagarh, Dist. Seraikella-Kharswan. ………. Petitioner Versus 1. State of Jharkhand. 2. Chief Engineer, Mechanical Division, Chandil Complex, P.O. & P.S. Chandil, Dist. Seraikella-Kharswan. 3. Executive Engineer, Kendriya Bhandar and Shivir Division, P.O. and P.S. Chandil, Dist. Seraikella-Kharsawan. 4. Treasury Officer, Seraikella-Kharsawan, P.O. and P.S. Seraikella, Dist. Seraikella-Kharsawan. ………. Respondents. ---------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Laxman Kumar, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Divyam, AC to SC-IV ---------- 07/ 05.05.2026 By way of present writ application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 29.05.2017 (Annexure-2), issued by respondent No. 3, whereby the order of recovery has been issued. Petitioner has further prayed for a direction upon the respondents to restore the 1st ACP w.e.f. 26.06.2001 because it was rightly granted to the petitioner on completion of 12 years of continuous service. 2. The facts of the case as narrated in the writ application is that the Petitioner was appointed on 11.01.1985 to the post of Adeshpal under the Respondents. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Koshrakshak on 26.06.1989. In the year 2003, State Government introduced Assured Carrier Progression Scheme as per which State Government employees are entitled for 1st ACP on completion of 12 years’ service and 2nd A.C.P. on completion of 24 years of service. (Annexure-1). Accordingly, on completion of 12 years’ service from 26.06.1989, the concerned Respondent granted 1st A.C.P. to the Petitioner w.e.f. 26.06. 2001. 2026:JHHC:13487 2 3. However, vide Letter No. 43 dated 09.02.2017 1st A.C.P., earlier granted to petitioner w.e.f. 26.06.2001, was cancelled on the ground that Petitioner has got promotion in the year 1989. Further, vide Memo No. 170 dated 29.05.2017 Executive Engineer, Kendriya Bhandar and Shivir Division Chandil, issued recovery order from the Salary of the petitioner on the ground that earlier granted 1st ACP was cancelled therefore excess payment has been made to the petitioner. 4. The case of the petitioner is that there is a guideline of the State Government regarding recovery as contained in Memo No. 151 dated 08.11.2018 issued by the Department of Planning-Cum-Finance, Jharkhand, Ranchi, as per which it is not permissible to recover excess payment from the Group D employees and when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years before the order of recovery is issued. 5. Accordingly, the petitioner vide representations dated 13.10.2025 and dated 07.11.2025 requested the Executive Engineer, Kendriya Bhandar and Shivir, Chandil to consider his claim for refund as per Memo No. 151 dated 08.11.2018 and refund the recovered amount to petitioner but till date the representations are pending before the concern authority without any order on it. In the meantime, petitioner retired from service on attaining age of superannuation on 30.09.2022 from the post of Koshrakshak under the Executive Engineer, Kendriya Bhandar and Shivir, Chandil. 6. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order (Annexure-2) has been passed without issuing any show-cause notice. Learned counsel submits that law in this regard that no recovery can be made from a retired Class-III & IV employee has been dealt in the case of State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih1; as such, the impugned order may be quashed and set aside. 7. No counter-affidavit has been filed; however, learned counsel for the respondents fairly submits that the matter may be disposed of to 1 (2015) 4 SCC 334 2026:JHHC:13487 3 decide the claim of the petitioner in the light of judgment referred herein above. 8. Hence, though no counter-affidavit has been filed in this case but since the law with regard to recovery from a retired Class-III & IV employee has been settled; as such, this Court is proceeding to decided the issue involved in this case without any counter-affidavit. 9. Having regard to the above and looking to the prayer made in this writ application, coupled with the impugned order which has been passed against this petitioner, that also without giving any show-cause notice, is bad in law and it has been well settled in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra), wherein it has been held that recovery is impermissible from the employees belonging to Class III and Class IV service or Group C and Group D service. For brevity, para-18 of the said judgment is extracted herein below: “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 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.” 10. Even the respondent State has issued a guideline regarding recovery as contained in Memo No. 151 dated 08.11.2018. 11. In view of the aforesaid settled legal proposition of law, it is evident that the impugned order dated 29.05.2017 (Annexure-2), is bad in law and as such, the same is hereby quashed and set. 2026:JHHC:13487 4 12. The respondents are directed to calculate the amount, which has already been recovered, if any, and refund the same in the account of the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 13. Accordingly, the instant writ application stands allowed. (Deepak Roshan, J.) 5th May, 2026 kunal/- Uploaded on 21.05.2026