IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4873 of 2005 SRI KANHAIYA LAL PANDIT S/O LATE GANGA DAYAL PANDIT R/O VILLAGE-+ P.O.- BHALUNI DHAM, PO-DINARA,DISTT- ROHTAS,SASARAM------------------PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COLLECTOR, ROHTAS AT SASARAM 3. THE TREASURY OFFICER, SASARAM 4. THE A.G, BIHAR, PATNA-------RESPONDENTS ----------- 5 6.2.2009 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner retired from the post of Head Clerk from the office of Collector, Rohtas at Sasaram on 31.10.2001. After his superannuation he has had to move the Court for payment of his retiral dues. During course of fixation of his pension and gratuity an objection dated 7.2.2005 was raised by the office of the Accountant General that the pay scale given to the petitioner of Rs. 5000 to Rs. 8000/- was not in consonance with the resolution of the Finance Department No. 1336 dated 3.3.2001. Accountant General worked out a figure of Rs. 10831/- under the head of excess payment due to wrong fixation. Petitioner has challenged this order by filing the present writ application. During the pendency of the writ application a counter affidavit initially came to be filed by the respondents where they have supported the objection raised by the Accountant General on the question of wrong fixation but they worked out a figure of Rs. 50, 472/- to have been paid excess to the petitioner. This has been ordered to be recovered on a direction to the Treasury Officer, Sasaram and the amount has been recovered as well. - 2 - The Court not being satisfied with the stand taken by the respondents directed filing of a supplementary affidavit on behalf of the respondents as to what was the wrong fixation, when it was made and how a figure of Rs. 50,000/- and odd has come to be worked out. A supplementary affidavit come to be filed by respondents where they have only reiterated the earlier position. The question, therefore, arises whether the respondents can be permitted to recover these amounts after many a years of retirement of petitioner on the ground of wrong fixation of pay to which this petitioner had no contribution to make. The pleadings do no show that the petitioner had any role to play by misrepresentation or fraud in getting the pay scale fixed which was conferred upon him during the service period. The law being what it is and the recent decision of the Full Bench in the case of Ram Binod Singh vrs. Bihar State Electricity Board & Ors along with other analogous cases reported in 2007 (3) PLJR 398 having laid down the parameter in this regard, the order of recovery made against the petitioner under the refixation of salary based on the objection of the Accountant General contained in annexure-1 is quashed. Respondents are directed to refund this amount to the petitioner preferably within a period of three months from the date of communication or product ion of a copy of this order. It is however, clarified that the fixation of pension of the petitioner would be made on the basis of the correct pay scale to which he was entitled to at the relevant time. - 3 - Before parting learned counsel for the petitioner points out that communication of pension has been authorized by the Accountant General vide Authorization No. -7 / CA-C. Case /CVP-35/2005-06 dated 26.4.2005 but the petitioner has not been released this money in his favour. In this regard the Treasury Officer, Sasaram is directed to ensure that the commuted value of pension authorized in favour of the petitioner would be honoured within the time framed as aforesaid. This writ application stands allowed to the extent indicated above. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J.)