Doli Devi vs The State of Bihar
- Court
- Patna High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No. 612 of 2023
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.286 of 2021
======================================================
Doli Devi (female) aged about 58 years old, wife of Late Birendra Kumar,
Resident of Khaira, P.O.-Khaira, P.S. Khaira, District-Jamui
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. The Principal Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj, Bihar, Patna
3. The District Magistrate, Jamui.
4. The District Panchayat Raj Officer, Jamui.
5. The Block Development Officer, Gidhaur, District-Jamui.
6. The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj Amarth, P.O. & P.S. and
District-Jamui.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Pratik Kumar Sinha, Advocate
Ms. Nivedita Chy. Advocate
Ms. Navya Shikha, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
CAV JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH)
Date: 02-09-2026
The present appeal has been filed against the order dated
12.12.2022, passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in
CWJC No.286 of 2021, whereby and whereunder the writ
petition has been disposed of finding the same to be without any
merit, however with liberty to the writ petitioner to raise her
grievance regarding certain more amounts having been deducted
Patna High Court L.P.A. No.612 of 2023 dt.02-09-2026
2/8
from the death-cum-retiral benefits of her deceased husband by
filing an exhaustive representation before the District Panchayat
Raj Officer, Jamui, which has been directed to be considered in
light of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the
case of State of Punjab & Ors. vs. Rafiq Masih & Ors.,
reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334.
2. The brief facts of the case, according to the appellant are
that her husband was appointed as Panchayat Secretary vide
Memo dated 27.11.1996 and posted at Laxmipur Block,
however he died in harness on 07.06.2016 in a road accident
while posted under Gidhaur Block, whereupon the appellant had
applied for payment of death-cum-retiral benefits of her husband
and ultimately P.O. and G.P.O. were issued on 31.01.2019. It is
the case of the appellant that the respondents have recovered a
sum of Rs.3,66,450/- without giving notice and without showing
as to how the said amount is recoverable from the husband of
the appellant. In fact, a further sum of Rs. 4,05,917/- was also
directed to be recovered but the appellant had deposited the
same in the bank account of the respondent.
3. It is the further case of the appellant that the Block
Development Officer, Gidhaur had issued a letter dated
03.04.2018 wherein it has been stated that the husband of the
Patna High Court L.P.A. No.612 of 2023 dt.02-09-2026
3/8
appellant had taken a sum of Rs. 4,38,450/- and deductions were
being made from his salary @ 8000/- per month, however only
Rs. 72,000/- could be recovered, thus balance amount of
Rs.3,66,450/- is recoverable apart from a sum of Rs.4,05,917/-
being recoverable by the Block Development Officer, Jamui,
hence the appellant was directed to deposit a sum of
Rs.3,66,450/- in the account of Block Development Officer,
Gidhaur and a sum of Rs.4,05,917/- in the account of Block
Development Officer, Jamui. The Block Development Officer,
Jamui had also issued a letter dated 16.03.2019 wherein it has
been stated that a sum of Rs.4,05,917/-, which is Panchayat
money and was given by way of advance to the husband of the
appellant is recoverable, however the same has been deposited
by the son of the appellant in the account of the Panchayat.
4. The appellant being aggrieved by the aforesaid letters
dated 03.04.2018 and 16.03.2019, issued by the Block
Development Officers, Gidhaur and Jamui respectively, had
filed a writ petition bearing CWJC No.286 of 2021, inter alia
praying therein to quash the said letters dated 03.04.2018 and
16.03.2019 and direct the respondent-authorities to refund the
aforesaid recoverable amount to the tune of Rs.7,72,367/- along
with interest @ 9 per cent per annum. The respondents had filed
Patna High Court L.P.A. No.612 of 2023 dt.02-09-2026
4/8
counter affidavit to the aforesaid writ petition before the writ
Court inter alia stating therein that the deceased husband of the
appellant, late Birendra Kumar was Panchayat Secretary in the
district of Jamui and was posted at Laxmipur Block, Jamui
Block and Gidhaur Block, however he died while posted at
Gidhaur Block in the year 2016. The deceased husband of the
appellant had taken a loan of Rs.4,38,450/-under the pension
head and had also taken advance of Rs.4,05,917/- while he was
posted at Jamui Block, hence the Block Development Officer,
Jamui had written a letter dated 03.04.2018 to the appellant
stating therein that her husband had taken a sum of
Rs.4,38,450/- under pension head & in lieu of the same, he was
depositing a sum of Rs.8000/- per month, thus he had deposited
a total sum of Rs.72,000/-, hence the balance amount of
Rs.3,66,450/- is recoverable. The Block Development Officer,
Gidhaur had also informed the appellant vide letter dated
03.04.2018 that a further sum of Rs.4,05,917/- which had been
withdrawn by the husband of the appellant by way of advance
from the amount pertaining to royalty of sale tax deduction is
also required to be deposited in the Block Office, Jamui.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that
the aforesaid amount of Rs.7,72,367/- remains to be paid to the
Patna High Court L.P.A. No.612 of 2023 dt.02-09-2026
5/8
appellant and the same had been recovered/deposited without
any show-cause notice being issued to the appellant, hence the
same is illegal. It is also submitted that on account of pressure
on the son of the appellant to deposit the said amount in case he
wants to obtain compassionate appointment, the son of the
appellant had deposited a sum of Rs.4,05,917/-. The Ld. counsel
for the appellant while assailing the impugned order dated
12.12.2022, passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court,
has submitted that recovery has been made illegally, i.e. in the
teeth of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the
case of Rafiq Masih (supra) as also in the teeth of judgment
rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sahib Ram
vs. State of Haryana & Ors. , reported in 1995 Supp (1) SCC
18.
6. Per contra , the learned counsel for the respondents has
submitted that the aforesaid sums of money was not only taken
by way of advance by the deceased husband of the appellant but
he had also withdrawn sums pertaining to royalty and sales tax
deduction pertaining to BRGF project, hence this is not a case
where recovery is being sought to be made of such amount
which had been paid in excess by the respondents to the
deceased husband of the appellant without any
Patna High Court L.P.A. No.612 of 2023 dt.02-09-2026
6/8
misrepresentation on his part, however the amount sought to be
recovered is the amount of advance which was taken by the
deceased husband of the appellant and / or the amount of
royalty/sales tax deduction which was illegal withdrawn by the
husband of the appellant.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and
perused the materials on record from which it is apparent that
the appellant has not contradicted the fact that the recovery
made/being made by the respondents is legitimate or that the
aforesaid sums of money had not been taken by the husband of
the appellant by way of advance or were not withdrawn by him.
Therefore, admittedly the present case is not a case of payment
of excess salary to the deceased husband of the appellant
without any fault or misrepresentation on his part rather the
present case is a case where advance taken by the deceased
husband of the appellant has been adjusted/sought to be
recovered. In the facts and circumstances of the case, judgment
rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rafiq Masih
(supra) is clearly distinguishable in the facts and circumstances
of the present case and not applicable.
8. It is a well settled law that where the employee had the
knowledge that the payment received was in excess of what was
Patna High Court L.P.A. No.612 of 2023 dt.02-09-2026
7/8
due or wrongly paid, or where the error is detected or corrected
within a short time of wrong payment, the Court will not grant
relief against recovery. In this connection, reference be had to a
judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
Col. B. J. Akkara (Retd.) vs. Govt. of India , reported in (2006)
11 SCC 709. We may also refer to a judgment rendered by the
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of High Court of Punjab &
Haryana v. Jagdev Singh , reported in (2016) 14 SCC 26 .
9. Thus, the present case is a case where the aforesaid sums
of money were not only taken by way of advance by the
deceased husband of the appellant but he had also withdrawn
sums pertaining to royalty and sales tax deduction pertaining to
BRGF project, which have remained incontrovertible. We also
find that the son of the appellant has voluntarily deposited a sum
of Rs. Rs.4,05,917/- in the bank account of the respondents,
which clearly goes to demonstrate that the appellant was aware
of the fact that her husband had taken advance from the
respondent which was required to be refunded/returned back to
the respondents.
10. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case
and for the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in the
present appeal, inasmuch as no infirmity can be found in the
Patna High Court L.P.A. No.612 of 2023 dt.02-09-2026
8/8
impugned order dated 12.12.2022, passed by the learned Single
Judge in CWJC No.286 of 2021, hence the present appeal stands
dismissed.
(Mohit Kumar Shah, J.)
I agree
Sourendra Pandey, J.
(Sourendra Pandey, J.)
kanchan
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE 29.07.2026
Uploading Date 02.09.2026
Transmission Date NA