Case Background
The petitioners were serving as Constables in the Bihar Police. They completed long years of service without any regular promotion to a higher post.
Because of such stagnation, they were granted financial upgradation under the Assured Career Progression (ACP) scheme. Their pay was fixed in the higher scale of Rs. 4000–6000, which is the scale of the next promotional post for constables.
Later, by memo no. 318/P5 dated 24.12.2019, issued by the Inspector General of Police (Head Quarter), their pay fixation was changed. Their pay scale was re-fixed in the lower Hawaldar scale of Rs. 3200–4900. The authorities also ordered recovery of what they called “excess payment” that had already been made on the basis of the earlier higher ACP scale.
The first petitioner superannuated on 31.01.2024. The husband of the second petitioner, who was also a constable, retired on 31.01.2021. After retirement, recovery was ordered from their post-retiral dues like gratuity and pensionary benefits.
Feeling aggrieved, they filed Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 3776 of 2025 before the Patna High Court. They challenged the 2019 memo, the downgrading of their pay scale, and the recovery from post-retirement benefits.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The petitioners approached the Patna High Court under its constitutional writ jurisdiction. They asked for three main reliefs.
First, they requested quashing of memo no. 318/P5 dated 24.12.2019. According to them, this memo wrongly downgraded their ACP pay scale from Rs. 4000–6000 to the Hawaldar scale of Rs. 3200–4900 and directed recovery of excess payments.
They pointed out that this memo went against an earlier direction of the Director General of Bihar Military Police contained in memo no. 147 dated 18.10.2019. They also argued that the recovery direction violated the law laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Punjab & Ors. v. Rafiq Masih.
Second, they asked that their case be considered in the light of a recent order dated 02.09.2024 in CWJC No. 8062 of 2021 (Saheb Sharan Das v. The State of Bihar and Ors.). In that case, similarly placed persons had approached the Court for refund of amounts deducted from their post-retirement benefits. The petitioners said they were exactly in the same situation and sought the same relief.
Third, they asked for consequential directions to refund the amounts deducted from their post-retirement benefits and to re-fix their pension in line with the judgment in L.P.A. No. 458 of 2021.
The Court recorded that, by an order dated 24th December (year not separately specified in the judgment text but linked to the 24.12.2019 memo), the Inspector General of Police, Bihar, directed recovery of specific sums from their post-retirement benefits. The amounts mentioned were Rs. 4,28,362/- and Rs. 3,74,754/-.
Counsel for the petitioners submitted that whether such deductions from post-retiral benefits were permissible had already been settled by a Division Bench of the Patna High Court in LPA No. 458 of 2021, arising out of CWJC No. 1744 of 2020 (Srikant Dubey and Ors. v. The State of Bihar and Ors.).
The petitioners’ counsel also relied on another unreported judgment of the Patna High Court in CWJC No. 8062 of 2021, Saheb Sharan Das v. The State of Bihar and Ors., decided on 02.12.2024. That case also involved recovery from post-retiral benefits of similarly placed employees.
It was argued that since the first petitioner had already retired on 31.01.2024 and the husband of the second petitioner had retired on 31.01.2021, any recovery from their post-retirement benefits was barred by the Supreme Court’s decisions. The Court specifically noted reliance on State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih, reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334, and Thomas Daniel v. State of Kerala, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 536.
The petitioners further argued that the Division Bench in LPA No. 458 of 2021, by judgment dated 26.04.2024, had considered the effect of ACP benefits. The Division Bench had relied on the Supreme Court decision in Amresh Kumar Singh & Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors., reported in 2023 (2) PLJR (SC) 423. In that decision, it was held that for claiming ACP benefit, an employee need not fulfill all eligibility criteria for actual promotion to the next higher cadre.
In simpler terms, if an employee is stuck in the same post for 12 or 24 years without promotion, he or she is entitled to get the next promotional pay scale under ACP. The officers cannot later say that promotion conditions were not met and hence withdraw the benefit.
The Court recorded that in the present case, the post-retiral benefits of the petitioners had been calculated based on their ACP promotional scale. There was no scope of promotion for them during the 12–24 year period, so they were granted the next promotional pay scale under ACP. On that basis, their pension and other dues were computed.
On behalf of the State, it was submitted that the case should indeed be examined in the light of the Division Bench decision in LPA No. 458 of 2021. The State’s counsel stated that if the petitioners’ case was found to be at par with the appellants in that appeal, then the petitioners’ post-retirement benefits could not be withheld.
Very significantly, the State’s counsel made a fair submission. She accepted that after the Supreme Court’s judgment in Rafiq Masih and the subsequent follow-up decisions, she had nothing further to say in support of the recovery.
After hearing both sides, the Court considered the Supreme Court authorities and its own earlier decisions. It found that the petitioners’ case was based on parity with earlier decided cases.
The Court held that, in view of Rafiq Masih, Thomas Daniel, the Division Bench judgment in LPA No. 458 of 2021, and the Supreme Court decision in Amresh Kumar Singh, the petitioners were entitled to protection from such recovery. The ACP benefits on which their pension had been calculated could not be withdrawn after retirement and the recovered amounts had to be restored.
The Court then issued clear directions to the respondents. The authorities were directed to restore the amounts recovered from the petitioners within eight weeks from the date the order is communicated. Further, the pensionary benefits of the petitioners must be re-fixed in the light of the Division Bench decision in LPA No. 458 of 2021.
With these directions, the writ petition was allowed on contest to that extent. The judgment thus provides concrete relief to the petitioners and ensures that their pension and other post-retirement dues are paid correctly without unlawful deductions.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is important for government employees in Bihar, especially those who retire from lower ranks like constables after long service.
First, it confirms that once an employee retires, the department generally cannot start recovering money from pension, gratuity or other post-retirement benefits for alleged “excess payment”, when the employee himself did nothing wrong and simply drew salary fixed by the department.
Second, it reinforces that ACP benefits are a right for employees who have remained in the same post for 12 or 24 years. Authorities cannot later say that the employee did not meet promotion conditions and use that to reduce the pay scale or pension.
Third, it shows that the Patna High Court follows earlier Supreme Court and High Court judgments closely. If an employee is in the same situation as in those cases, he or she can seek the same relief on the ground of parity.
For retired police personnel and other State employees, this decision offers reassurance that arbitrary recovery after retirement can be challenged successfully in the Patna High Court.
Legal Issues and Answers
- Issue: Can the State downgrade the ACP pay scale of retired constables and recover alleged excess amounts from their post-retirement benefits, despite long service and no fault on their part?
Answer: No. Following Supreme Court and earlier Patna High Court decisions, the Court held that such recovery from post-retiral benefits is impermissible where ACP was granted due to stagnation and the employee is retired. - Issue: Are the petitioners entitled to have their pension re-fixed on the basis of the higher ACP pay scale and to get back the amounts already recovered?
Answer: Yes. The Court directed the respondents to restore the recovered amounts within eight weeks and to re-fix the petitioners’ pensionary benefits in line with the Division Bench judgment in LPA No. 458 of 2021.
Cases Cited by the Court
- State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih, (2015) 4 SCC 334
- Thomas Daniel v. State of Kerala, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 536
- Amresh Kumar Singh & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors., 2023 (2) PLJR (SC) 423
- LPA No. 458 of 2021 in CWJC No. 1744 of 2020, Srikant Dubey and Ors. v. The State of Bihar and Ors. (Division Bench of Patna High Court, judgment dated 26.04.2024)
- CWJC No. 8062 of 2021, Saheb Sharan Das v. The State of Bihar and Ors. (Patna High Court, order dated 02.12.2024)
Case Details
Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 3776 of 2025
Case Title: Raj Kumar Singh & Anr. v. The State of Bihar & Ors.
Court: High Court of Judicature at Patna
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bibek Chaudhuri
Date of Judgment: 06.01.2026
Citation: 2026(1) PLJR 585
Nature of the Case: Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging recovery from post-retirement benefits and re-fixation of ACP pay scale.
Advocates for the Petitioners: Mr. Kumar Praveen, Advocate; Mr. Barun Kr. Singh, Advocate
Advocates for the Respondents/State: Ms. Vagisha Pragya Vacaknavi, AC to SC 9; Ms. Sushmita Sharma, Advocate
Link to the Judgment: Click here to read the full judgment of the Patna High Court
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about
how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar,
you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
