IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1957 of 2002 ANUTHA PRASAD SHARMA, S/O LATE TAPASI THAKUR, R/O VILLAGE-PREM NAGAR, TOLE MALIKANA, P.S. RUNNI SAIDPUR, DISTRICT-SITAMARHI. ………………PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY/COMMISSINER, HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE SECRETARY/COMMISSIONER, HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE DIRECTOR, PRIMARY EDUCATION, BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, SITAMARHI. 5. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, BIHAR. 6. THE SENIOR ACCOUNTS OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A & E)II, BIHAR, PATNA. …………………RESPONDENTS. ----------- 4 07.08.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. In this writ application a communication from the office of the Accountant General addressed to the District Superintendent of Education, Sitamarhi, as contained in Annexure- 2, is under challenge, by which petitioner has been held not entitled to promotion to the higher scale and District Superintendent has been directed to adjust the excess amount paid to the petitioner on the basis of such wrong fixation of pay in the higher scale. The impugned order itself shows that the fixation of pay of the petitioner was done in the light of Rule 22 (C) of Fundamental Rules. Similar issue had come up before this Court earlier and travelled up to the Hon’ble - 2 - Suprme Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court by a judgment delivered in the case of Syed Abdul Qadir Vs. State of Bihar and Others, reported in 2009 (2) PLJR 74 (SC), affirmed the orders of the respondents revising the fixation of pay done under said Rule 22 (C) of the Fundamental Rules. However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has quashed that part of the order by which the respondents were directed to recover the excess amount paid to the petitioner on account of such wrong fixation of pay in the higher scale in terms of the said Rules. It is agreed at the bar that the said judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court squarely covers the case of the petitioners also. In the circumstances, this writ application is disposed of and that part of Anexure-2 is quashed by which the District Superintendent of Education has been directed to recover the excess amount paid to the petitioner on the ground of wrong fixation of pay. From the order dated 27.7.2001 it appears that the recovery of the amount was stayed by this Court. However it is made clear that if any recovery of the excess amount has been made from the salary of the petitioner prior to the said - 3 - order passed by this Court pursuant to Annexure- 2, the same shall be refunded to the petitioner forthwith. The writ application is disposed of thus. Arvind/ (J. N. Singh, J.)