IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13471 of 2008 Shambhu Nath Pandey, aged about 51 years, son of Late Rajendra Pandey, resident of village Belwa, P.O. Adapur, Police Station Harpur, District East Champaran………………………………………………………….………..Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar, through the Commissioner, Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariate, Patna. 2. The Commissioner, Finance Department, Govt. of Bihar, Old Secretariate, Patna. 3. The Director, Primary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 4. The District Superintendent of Education, Motihari, East Champaran. 5. The Head Master, Govt. Middle School, Adapur (boys), Adapur, East Champaran………………Respondents -------- 4 08.11.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State. Learned counsel for the petitioner confines the prayer of the petitioner in this writ application to a challenge to the order of the District Superintendent of Education, East Champaran contained in Letter no.1059 dated 14.05.2008, vide Annexure-3, by which he has been directed to deposit an amount of Rs.1,48,774/- in one instalment in the treasury, allegedly paid to him in excess of his entitlement. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was paid Matric Trained scale under the orders of the 2 District Superintendent of Education dated 22.12.1993 in the light of some judgment of this Court, vide Annexure-1. He admits that subsequently in view of the judgment of the larger Bench of this Court, physical Trained Teachers have been held not entitled for Matric Trained scale. Hence he does not press this application for any direction to the respondents to pay the petitioner Matric Trained scale. But he submits that since scale was paid to him, may be wrongly, on the orders of the competent authority, in the light of the some judgment of this Court, excess amount paid to him should not be recovered. A counter affidavit has been filed. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that since petitioner was not entitled for Matric Trained scale, the order of recovery has been issued directing him to deposit the excess amount paid to him in the treasury. Annexure-1 shows that the order for grant of Matric Trained scale to the petitioner was issued by the District Superintendent of Education on the basis of 3 some orders of this Court. As such, apparently there was no fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner in the matter. As such, on equitable considerations, this Court finds that the respondents should not be allowed to recover the amount paid to petitioner in excess of his entitlement on the basis of said Annexure-1. The impugned order (Annexure-3) is, therefore, quashed and respondents are restrained from recovering the alleged amount paid to him pursuant to the said order of District Superintendent of Education as contained in Annexure-1. The writ application is allowed with the aforesaid observations and directions. BT (J. N. Singh, J.)