IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10168 of 2002 KAILASH BIHARI SINGH son of late Babulal Singh, resident of village Nanhakar Simardah, police Station Majorganj, District Sitamarhi…… Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Secretary-cum-Commissioner, Primary Education Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Director, Primary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 4. The District Superintendent of Education, Sheohar. 5. The District Superintendent of Education, Sitamarhi. 6. The Block Education Extension Officer, Purnahia, District Sitamarhi. 7. The Accountant General ( A & E ) II, Bihar and Jharkhand, patna. 8. The Senior Accounts Officer, office of Accountant General, Bihar and Jharkhand, Patna. … Respondents. ----------- 3. 24.06.2010 Heard counsel for the parties. The prayer in this writ petition reads as follows:- i) For quashing the letter bearing Memo no. 3033 dated 21.3.2002 issued by the Senior Accounts Officer, Bihar, Patna whereby and whereunder an order for recovery of excess paid amount has been passed. ii) For issuance of direction commanding the respondents to fix the pay scale of the petitioner as was before retirement because no any excess increment was fixed. iii) For issuance of direction commanding the respondents to make payment of dearness allowance, medical allowance as per enhanced pay scale payable to the petitioner. Iv) For issuance of direction commanding the respondents for fixation of pension as per the last pay fixed earlier and payment of arrears including interest @ 18 per cent 2 per annum.” Counsel for the petitioner with reference to the aforementioned relief would submit that the issue is now squarely covered by the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Syed Abdul Qadir & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors., reported in (2009) 3 SCC 475. Counsel for the State does not dispute this proposition but then he would point out that the said judgment in the case of Syed Abdul Qadir (supra) has two facets namely that no excess amount allegedly paid to the petitioner would be recovered but then the payment of salary and consequential fixation of pension shall be made on the basis of entitlement of the petitioner in the pay-scale which was actually admissible and payable to him. In the opinion of this Court, both the counsels are correct inasmuch as the case is definitely covered by Syed Abdul Qadir’s case (supra) but then the effect of Syed Abdul Qadir’s case in the case of the petitioner would be that the petitioner’s salary fixation as done in the order of the 3 Accountant General on the date of his retirement in the pay-scale of Rs.2200-4000 will be Rs.2575/- only but the amount which has already been paid prior to his retirement said be excess on account of wrong pay fixation on account of ignorance of Rule 22(C) of the Fundamental Rules as implemented in the case of teachers of State of Bihar will not be recovered. In other words, only the last portion of the impugned order of Accountant General as with regard to recovery is quashed but the earlier salary fixation of Rs.2575/- per month is upheld. With the aforementioned observation and direction, this writ petition is disposed of. kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)