Amounts recovered under the impugned decision must be refunded within four months.

The petitioners, retired employees, challenged the recovery of alleged excess payments from their gratuity/pensionary benefits pursuant to the State Government’s decision dated 10 November 2020.

The amounts sought to be refunded were ₹3,11,072 from Petitioner No. 1, ₹2,87,082 from Petitioner No. 2, and ₹4,76,252 from Petitioner No. 3, as reflected in their respective Pension Payment Orders.

During hearing, the petitioners submitted that the writ petition could be disposed of in terms of the Division Bench judgment dated 24 June 2025 in L.P.A. No. 593 of 2022, Subhash Choudhary & Ors. v. The State of Bihar & Ors., which directed reconsideration of recovery/excess-payment issues, opportunity of hearing where necessary, and refund of amounts already recovered in appropriate cases.

The State respondents did not dispute this submission and agreed that the petition could be disposed of on the same terms.

1. Whether the recovery of amounts from the petitioners’ gratuity/pensionary benefits pursuant to the State Government’s decision dated 10 November 2020 required reconsideration in accordance with the directions in Subhash Choudhary?

2. Whether the amounts already recovered from the petitioners were required to be refunded?

3. Whether the concerned authorities were required to provide an opportunity of oral hearing or written submissions and pass a reasoned, speaking order if their decision was adverse to the petitioners?

The Court applied the directions laid down by the Division Bench in Subhash Choudhary & Ors. v. The State of Bihar & Ors., L.P.A. No. 593 of 2022, order dated 24 June 2025, concerning reconsideration of recovery or excess-payment claims.

The authorities were required to examine the matter in light of applicable judicial pronouncements on recovery of excess payments; where the proposed decision was adverse, the concerned employees had to be given an adequate opportunity of oral hearing or written submission, followed by a detailed speaking order within six months.

Amounts already recovered pursuant to the impugned State decision dated 10 November 2020 were directed to be refunded within four months from receipt of the Division Bench order.

The Court also applied the principle that judicial directions governing similarly situated employees may be extended to the petitioners where the respondents do not dispute their applicability.

The petitioners’ grievance concerned recovery from their gratuity and pensionary benefits under the same State Government decision addressed in Subhash Choudhary.

Since the petitioners relied on the Division Bench’s directions and the respondents expressly accepted that the matter could be disposed of on identical terms, the Court did not independently adjudicate the legality of each individual recovery.

Instead, it adopted the binding procedural and remedial framework prescribed in Subhash Choudhary: the authorities must reconsider the recovery issue, afford hearing and consider written submissions where an adverse decision is contemplated, pass a speaking order, and refund amounts already recovered where covered by the impugned decision.

The concerned authorities were directed to refund, within four months from receipt or production of a copy of the judgment, any amount recovered from the petitioners pursuant to the State Government’s decision dated 10 November 2020, including the amounts specified in the petition.

The authorities were also bound by the incorporated directions requiring reconsideration of the recovery issue, opportunity of hearing or written submission in the event of an adverse decision, and issuance of a detailed speaking order within six months.