2026:JHHC:16820-DB 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No.27 of 2019 ----- 1. The State of Jharkhand through its Secretary, Human Resources Development Department (Now called School Education and Literacy Department), Government of Jharkhand, having office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, Town & District- Ranchi. 2. The Director, Secondary Education, Human Resources Development Department (Now called School Education and Literacy Department), Government of Jharkhand, having office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, Town & District- Ranchi. 3. Regional Deputy Director of Education, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi, having office at Kali Babu Street, P.O.-G.P.O. & P.S. Kotwali, District-Ranchi. 4. Deputy Commissioner, Simdega, P.O. & P.S. Simdega, District- Simdega. 5. The District Superintendent of Education, Simdega, P.O. and P.S. Simdega, District-Simdega .......... Appellants. -Versus- Sobhnath Sahu, son of Late Jhakhnu Sahu, resident of Mohalla, Kobang, P.O.-Kyundih, P.S. Simdega, District Simdega. .......... Respondent. ----- CORAM : HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ----- For the Appellants : Mr. Ashok Kumar Yadav, Sr. S.C.-I For the Respondent: Mr. Manoj Tandon, Advocate ----- Order No.18 Date: 10.06.2026 Per: Rajesh Shankar, J. 1. The present Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order dated 03.12.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No.2236 of 2010, whereby the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner/respondent has been allowed quashing the Office 2026:JHHC:16820-DB 2 Order as contained in Memo No.568 dated 29.03.2010 issued under the signature of District Superintendent of Education, Simdega (the appellant no.5) by which the pay scale of Trained Graduate Teacher (in short ‘TGT’) provided to the writ-petitioner was cancelled and excess payment made to him was sought to be recovered. 2. The factual background of the case as stated in the writ petition is that the writ petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher (Primary) vide Office Order as contained in Memo No.1566-866 dated 16.04.1987. He joined the said post with effect from 04.05.1987. Since, the petitioner had already passed his teachers’ training course (B.Ed.) on 05.05.1986 i.e., prior to his appointment, he was granted the pay scale of Trained Graduate Teacher with effect from his date of joining vide Office Order as contained in Memo No.119 dated 13.02.1992. 3. Accordingly, the pay of the writ-petitioner was fixed in the scale of Trained Graduate Teacher vide pay fixation chart dated 27.02.1992. Thereafter the pay fixation chart was verified by the Drawing and Disbursing Officer who countersigned the same on 28.02.1992 after finding the details of fixation to be correct. The said fixation was was finally approved by the Finance Department, Government of Bihar. 4. However, subsequently an Office Order as contained in Memo No.568 dated 29.03.2010 was issued by the appellant no.5 cancelling the pay scale of Trained Graduate Teacher earlier granted to the writ-petitioner and other similarly situated 2026:JHHC:16820-DB 3 persons. It was mentioned in the said office order that the qualifying year to obtain the pay scale of TGT with respect to the writ-petitioner was 1995 instead of the date of his initial appointment i.e., 04.05.1987 and hence a direction was issued for recovery of excess payment made to him. 5. Aggrieved thereby, the writ-petitioner filed a writ petition being W.P.(S) No.2236 of 2010 which was allowed by the learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated 03.12.2018 quashing the Office Order as contained in Memo No.568 dated 29.03.2010 issued by the appellant no.5. 6. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the writ- petitioner was appointed against the post of Primary Teacher (untrained) and not on the post of TGT. Hence, he was erroneously granted the pay scale of TGT (Science). 7. It is further submitted that the District Education Establishment Committee, Simdega is the only competent authority/body to grant promotion to the higher scale. However, without consent of the said Committee, the writ-petitioner/respondent was wrongly and illegally granted the pay scale of TGT (Science) vide Memo No.119 dated 13.02.1992 issued under the signature of the then District Superintendent of Education, Gumla. 8. It is also contended that the post of TGT is a promotional post, which is granted after preparation of seniority list as well as on the basis of sanctioned vacancy and district wise roster. However, without following the lawful procedure applicable for promotion to the pay scale of TGT (Science), the writ-petitioner was granted 2026:JHHC:16820-DB 4 the same with retrospective effect i.e., from the initial date of his joining the service. 9. It is argued that in view of the letter no. 2074/F(2) dated 04.04.1985 issued by the Finance Department, Government of Bihar, no promotion or financial benefit could have been granted from retrospective date. 10. It is also submitted that the pay scale of promotional grade (Grade-4) granted to the writ-petitioner vide memo no.119 dated 13.02.1992 was rectified as per the direction of the Director, Primary Education, Jharkhand issued vide letter no.1306 dated 26.06.2009 and the writ-petitioner was granted the pay scale of TGT (Science) from the year of his eligibility i.e., 1995. 11. It is further argued that the pay scale of TGT (Science) was granted to the writ-petitioner on his undertaking that the excess amount would be refunded, if found wrongly paid. Thus, the writ- petitioner cannot claim that once the pay scale of TGT was granted to him, the same cannot be withdrawn and the excess amount paid to him, be recovered. 12. On the contrary, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ- petitioner/respondent submits that the impugned office order dated 29.03.2010 was issued by the appellant no.5 without providing any opportunity of hearing to the writ-petitioner and as such the same was rightly quashed by the learned Single Judge which needs no interference of this Court. 13. It is further submitted that the provisions of the Bihar (now Jharkhand) Taken Over Elementary School Teachers’ Promotion 2026:JHHC:16820-DB 5 Rules, 1993 could not be made applicable retrospectively to take away the accrued right of the writ-petitioner. 14. It is further submitted that the order dated 03.12.2018 passed in W.P.(S) No. 2236 of 2010 has already been complied by the appellants and the writ-petitioner has also superannuated from service. Thus, no order prejudicial to the interest of the writ- petitioner may be passed at this stage. 15. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 16. Thrust of the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the writ-petitioner was appointed on the post of Primary Teacher (untrained) and he was wrongly granted the pay scale of TGT (Science) without obtaining the approval of the District Education Establishment Committee which is the only competent body to grant promotion to the teachers in the higher pay scale. As such the same was rectified vide impugned office order dated 29.03.2010 passed by the appellant no.5. 17. On perusal of the record, it would evident that the writ petitioner was granted the pay scale of TGT with effect from the date of his joining i.e., 04.05.1987 vide office order as contained in Memo No. 119 dated 13.02.1992. His pay was accordingly fixed vide pay fixation chart dated 27.02.1992 and the same was also approved by the Finance Department, Government of Bihar. 18. It is not the case of the appellants that the writ-petitioner had committed any fraud or misrepresentation while he was granted the said pay scale. Subsequently, vide impugned office order 2026:JHHC:16820-DB 6 dated 29.03.2010, the pay scale of the writ-petitioner was rectified and was granted the pay scale of TGT with effect from 1995. Thus, the order of rectification of pay scale of the writ- petitioner was passed after 18 years of granting the said scale that too without providing any opportunity of hearing to him. The said order was rather issued in deference to the letter no. 1306 dated 26.06.2009 issued by the Director, Primary Education, Jharkhand and letter no.676 dated 19.05.2009 issued by the Regional Deputy Director of Education, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi. 19. It is a well settled principle of law that no one can be inflicted with an adverse order, without being afforded a reasonable opportunity of hearing. Any authority making a decision which adversely affects a person’s rights or results in prejudicial civil consequences, is duty-bound to act in consonance with the basic rules of natural justice and the person concerned should be afforded an opportunity to explain his position. 20. Even otherwise, the writ-petitioner has already superannuated from service and the recovery of excess payment made to him is sought to be done by the appellants after 18 years of granting him pay scale of TGT. Though the appellants have contended that the said pay scale was wrongly granted to the writ-petitioner/ respondent, however, there was no act of fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the writ-petitioner. The said recovery is impermissible in law in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of State of Punjab 2026:JHHC:16820-DB 7 and Others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Others reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334. The relevant part of the said judgment is quoted hereinbelow: - “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.” 21. Otherwise also, the learned counsel for the writ- petitioner/respondent has submitted that few similarly situated persons, namely, Ramchandra Sahu, Sudhir Beck and Ram Kumar had also filed writ petitions challenging the same Office Order 2026:JHHC:16820-DB 8 dated 29.03.2010 impugned in this case, whereby the pay scale of TGT granted to them were also shifted from 09.06.1992, 25.04.1988 and 09.06.1992 to the year 2000, 1996 and 2000 respectively. The said writ petitions were allowed by the Writ Court vide common order/judgment dated 22.06.2018. Thereafter, the appellants filed appeals being L.P.A No.53 of 2020 and L.P.A No.163 of 2020 which were heard together by a co- ordinate Bench of this Court and on the request of the counsel for the appellants, the same were dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 06.04.2021 giving liberty to the appellants to initiate proceeding in accordance with law, if they so desired or so advised. 22. It is important to note that in the matter of similarly situated persons, the appellants did not choose to contest the cases on merit and they themselves requested to withdraw the same. Moreover, the appellants have also not explained before this Court as to what actions were taken against those similarly situated persons even after lapse of more than five years of granting liberty to initiate proceeding in accordance with law. 23. In the present case, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted at bar that the order dated 03.12.2018 passed in W.P.(S) No. 2236 of 2010 has already been complied subject to the final outcome of the present appeal. 24. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we do not find any good ground to interfere with the order dated 03.12.2018 passed in W.P.(S) No.2236 of 2010. 2026:JHHC:16820-DB 9 25. The present appeal being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed. 26. Pending I.As., if any, are also disposed of. (M.S. Sonak, C.J.) (Rajesh Shankar, J.) 10th June, 2026 A.F.R. Rohit/ Uploaded on 12.06.2026