In a powerful ruling that underscores the protection of lower-rung government employees from undue financial recovery, the Patna High Court declared the recovery of excess salary payments from such employees unconstitutional. Justice Purnendu Singh, presiding over the case, imposed a ₹5 lakh personal fine on the Child Development Project Officer (CDPO) responsible for issuing the recovery order against Sita Kumari, an Auxiliary Nurse Midwife (ANM) in the state’s Health Department.
Case Background
The petitioner, Sita Kumari, has been an ANM with the Bihar Health Department since 1983, serving in a Class III, non-gazetted post. Over her tenure, Kumari received regular salary increments and allowances, culminating in a Time Bound Promotion due to her consistent service. However, a 2009 audit by the office of the Principal Accountant General (Audit), Bihar, flagged Kumari’s salary, indicating she had been receiving excess payments since 1984 for not passing a mandatory Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination.
Despite Kumari’s claim that, as an ANM, she was exempt from the examination requirement under the Bihar Government Employees (Hindi Examination) Rules, 1968, the Medical Officer-in-Charge of the Bakhtiyarpur Primary Health Centre issued a unilateral order for monthly deductions of ₹7,920 to recover a total of ₹3,08,980. Kumari challenged this order in the Patna High Court, asserting it violated her rights and was issued without jurisdiction.
Key Legal Issues and Court’s Observations
The court examined several legal questions central to the case, particularly the legality of recovering excess payments from lower-rung employees and the procedural due process, or lack thereof, provided to Kumari. In its ruling, the court referenced the Supreme Court’s established guidelines, particularly from State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih, which restricts such recoveries, especially when the payments are not due to employee fault and would cause hardship.
Justice Singh cited Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, which ensures equality before the law, as the basis for deeming the recovery from Kumari “arbitrary and unconstitutional.” The judge highlighted that lower-rung employees, particularly those in Class III and Class IV positions, often rely on their full earnings for family upkeep and would face severe hardship due to prolonged recoveries.
In a scathing remark on the CDPO’s actions, the court noted, “The deliberate, willful, misleading, and incorrect statements made on behalf of the respondent only call for initiating a proceeding of contempt… the deliberate action of the CDPO for recovery is not in accordance with law.”
Court’s Decision
Justice Singh quashed the recovery order, holding it unconstitutional and imposed a ₹5 lakh fine on the CDPO of Fatuha for harassing the petitioner and overloading the court with unwarranted litigation. The court ordered that any recovered amount be returned to Kumari within three months.
In issuing the penalty, the court emphasized its displeasure with the CDPO’s disregard for established legal precedents and for ignoring the financial hardship such recovery would cause. Justice Singh underscored that such actions, especially in light of the Apex Court’s rulings, undermined principles of natural justice and procedural fairness.
