High Court of Jharkhand Orders Refund to Retired Jharkhand Real Estate Regulatory Authority Acting Chairman, Says Higher Duties Entitle Officer to Chairman’s Pay
W.P.(S) No. 69 of 2025
By Navya Tiwari
In a significant ruling protecting the financial rights of officials performing higher responsibilities in public office, the High Court of Jharkhand held that a person who functioned as the Chairman of the Jharkhand Real Estate Regulatory Authority was lawfully entitled to receive the salary and benefits attached to that post, even though he had only been “nominated” and not formally appointed as Chairman.
The case arose from a writ petition filed by Ranjeet Kumar Choudhary, a retired Member of JHARERA, challenging the State Government’s decision to recover ₹5,47,984 from his House Rent Allowance after retirement. The State claimed that the amount represented “excess payment” made during the period when Choudhary functioned as Chairman of the Authority.
The petitioner had originally been appointed as a Member of JHARERA. However, after the post of Chairperson fell vacant in December 2022, the Governor of Jharkhand nominated him to discharge the functions of Chairman until either a regular appointment was made or he attained superannuation. Acting under this notification, Choudhary assumed charge as Chairman and continued to perform all duties associated with the office until his retirement on 25 January 2024.
During this tenure, he received salary equivalent to the pay scale of the Chief Secretary rank, which is the scale prescribed for the Chairperson of JHARERA. After his retirement, however, the State authorities concluded that since he had only been “nominated” and not substantively appointed as Chairman, he was not entitled to that scale. Consequently, the alleged excess amount was recovered from his HRA dues.
Rejecting the State’s reasoning, Justice Ananda Sen observed that the petitioner had in fact discharged every responsibility of the Chairperson and had functioned fully in that capacity. The Court held that once an officer is entrusted with and performs the duties of a higher office, he cannot be denied the salary attached to that office merely because the arrangement was temporary or officiating in nature.
The Court categorically ruled that there was no illegality in paying Choudhary the Chairman’s scale during the period he actually served as Chairman. Declaring the recovery illegal, the Court directed the State to refund the deducted amount within three weeks from receipt of the order.
At the same time, the Court clarified an important distinction regarding retirement benefits. Since Choudhary’s tenure as Chairman was only temporary and not a substantive appointment, his pensionary and retiral benefits would continue to be calculated on the basis of the substantive post he held permanently — namely, Member of JHARERA.
With these observations, the writ petition was allowed, reaffirming the principle that public authorities cannot deny legitimate remuneration for duties actually performed, particularly after retirement.
