IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2450 of 2007 Kaushlendra Kumar Chaudhary, SON OF SRI YOGENDRA NATH CHAUDHARY, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- NEHARA P.S. MANIGACHI DISTRICT- DARBHANGA :--PETITIONER. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. THE COLLECTOR, DARBHANGA. 3. THE SETTLEMENT OFFICER, DARBHANGA. 4. DIRECTOR LAND RECORDS AND SURVEY BIHAR, PATNA :- --RESPONDENTS. ---------------------------------- 3. 29.08.2011. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State who has also filed counter affidavit which is taken on record. 2. Petitioner was earlier appointed as Class-IV employee. Later, in compliance of the order of the Board of Revenue dated 22.5.1999, Annexure-2 he was appointed on Class-III post of Muharrir. The order appointing the petitioner on the post of Muharrir in compliance of the order of the Board of Revenue has been passed by the Settlement Officer, Darbhanga which is dated 27.4.2000 and is contained in Annexure-3 to this application. This writ petition has been filed questioning the validity of the order bearing Memo No. 842-11 dated 21.11.2006 passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Headquarter, Darbhanga, whereunder a sum of Rs. 29649/- has been directed to be 2 recovered from the petitioner in 10 instalments, first instalment whereof is Rs. 2973/- and the other nine instalments is of Rs. 2964/-. Petitioner has also challenged the order bearing Memo No. 866-11 dated 27.11.2006, Annexure-4, whereunder reference of the recovery order dated 21.11.2006 has been made. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that from perusal of neither the order dated 21.11.2006 nor 27.11.2006 it will appear as to what is the reason for making such recovery from the salary of the petitioner. Counter affidavit is also not explaining as to why recovery is being directed from the petitioner. Petitioner having been appointed on Class-III post of Muharrir with effect from 29.4.2000 is entitled to salary of the Muharrir in the scale admissible to the Muharrir with effect from the date of his appointment. 4. Let the authorities reconsider the matter and pass a reasoned order indicating as to why recovery is to be made from the salary of the petitioner. Necessary order in 3 compliance of the order of the High Court be passed by the authorities, as early as possible, in any case within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order before the Settlement Officer, Darbhanga. Any recovery if already made shall be subject to the result of the further order which the authorities shall pass in compliance of this order. 5. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. P.K.P. (V.N.Sinha,J.)