CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.2738 OF 1994 ---------- IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. ---------- Ragho Prasad Singh, son of late Yogendra Singh, resident of Village- Bhasepur, Police Station- Bajpatti, District- Sitamarhi. --------Petitioner. -Versus- 1. The State of Bihar, through the Secretary/Commissioner, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Secretary/Commissioner, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Director, Secondary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Additional Director of Education, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur. 5. The District Education Officer, Sitamarhi. 6. The Head Master, Rajkiyakrit Shree Kailashpati High School, Athari, Police Station- Runi Saidpur, District- Sitamarhi. 7. The Accountant General, Bihar, Patna. 8. District Accounts Officer, Sitamarhi. --------Respondents. ---------- For the Petitioner : Mr. V.R.P.Singh, Advocate. For The Respondents : Mr.G.P.5. P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. SHEEMA ALI KHAN Sheema Ali Khan, The petitioner has moved this Court for quashing of annexure-5 dated 29.7.1993 by which the petitioner’s salary has been refixed in accordance with the amended Rule of 1993. The short facts are that the petitioner was posted at High School, Adalpur Amari, Munger where he joined his service on 8.11.1975. The petitioner was granted time bound promotion on 8.11.1985 vide order dated 4.10.1986. The State Government vide Resolution No.6022 dated 18.12.1989 revised the scale of pay of teachers with effect from 1.1.1986 but the actual payment in the - 2 - revised scale, however, was to be made from 1.3.1989. The petitioner’s scale was fixed by annexure-3. The petitioner’s pay was fixed in accordance with 1989 Resolution. The petitioner is aggrieved that the pay scale has been revised and he has been given a lower scale as the resolution dated 18.12.1989 has been revised by a decision of the State Government taken on 20.2.1993 which has amended the Resolution of 1989. The only contention raised on behalf of the Learned counsel for the petitioner is that the resolution dated 20.2.1993 of the Finance Department is not retrospective, and as such, the deduction of pay of the petitioner in accordance with the said Resolution could not have been made by the Accounts Officer. The Resolution is contained in annexure-4 and it would appear that the language of the Resolution is clear in as much as it states that the Resolution has amended the earlier resolution of the Finance Department dated 18.12.1989 and further states that the scales of concerned persons would now be governed by the present resolution. The relevant portion clearly states that the “foÙk foHkkx ds ladYi 6022 fnukad 18@12@1989 dh dafMdk 13¼2½ esa fuEufyf[kr lalks/ku djus dk fu.kZ; fy;k A” Thus, the Resolution itself envisages that the earlier resolution has been amended with the conditions that fixation of pay would now be in accordance with the present amendment by the resolution aforesaid. In view of my finding that the language of the resolution - 3 - envisages that the benefits given earlier vide resolution 1989 would be corrected and there is no ambiguity in its interpretation and it would cover the field despite the fact that the petitioner had been given benefit of the resolution 1989. The second question which arises in this case is with respect to recovery of the differences of pay, I do not think that it would be proper for the authorities to recover the excess pay which was paid to the petitioner as a result of the earlier resolution of the Government resolution No.602 dated 18.12.1989. This is not a case where the authorities have wrongly interpreted the rules or regulations and granted higher scale to the petitioner rather the grant of pay scale was in accordance with the Government resolution. Subsequent change in the decision of the government would not entitle the government to recover the excess pay given to the petitioner. Accordingly, this Court finds that there is no illegality in refixation of the pay scale to the petitioner but, however, quashes that part of the order which seeks to recover the excess amount paid to the petitioner. This writ application is partly allowed. Patna High Court 30 January,2009 A.F.R./U.K./Secretary (Sheema Ali Khan,J)