IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4303 of 2010 1. RAM KHELAWAN PRASAD SINGH S/O LATE HURO PRASAD SINGH R/O VILL.- MAHESHWARI, P.S.- SONO, DISTT.- JAMUI. VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY CUM COMMISSIONER HUMAN RESOURCES DEPTT. GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DIRECTOR SECONDARY EDUCATION GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE JAMUI 5. THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER JAMUI 6. THE HEAD MASTER -CUM - DRAWING DISBURSING OFFICER HIGH SCHOOL, MAHESHWARI, SONO, JAMUI. ----------- 06 05.08.2010 The petitioner by this writ application challenges the action of the respondent-State in refusing his pension and adjusting excess amount paid against pension on the ground that petitioner while in service did not pass Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination and having not passed was not entitled to the increment in pay scale, which was recently given while he was in service. It is not in dispute that this increment was given in the year 1983. The petitioner superannuated in 2004 and now suddenly authorities have woken up and hold that the increment given in 1983 was not justified. In my view, it is too late in the day for the State to take such an action. Firstly, no such action which has adverse civil consequences can at all be taken against any person may be administrative or otherwise without a proceeding being initiated in this regard. In case of petitioner, no proceeding can be initiated as he retired more than 6 years back and the mistake, if any, was committed over three decades back which is sought to be rectified today after petitioner has long since - 2 - superannuated. There is not a whisper that petitioner was in any manner responsible for causing the mistake. Thus, even though the respondents may have a right to correct a mistake, it does not follow that if petitioner is inconvenienced in any manner the right can still be exercised by the State after such a long time. Such action of the State is belated and it would not wholly inequitous to allow the State to take such an action at this stage, specially when petitioner was not at fault. In regards to impermissibility of recovery of amount, I may refer to a recent judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Syed Abdul Qadir & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. since reported in 2009(2) PLJR 74 (SC). In view of the aforesaid, the writ application is allowed and the action of the State at this belated stage is quashed. Trivedi/ (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)