IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.243 of 2006 Sushil Kumar Mallick son of late Chandra Pati Mallick resident of village Mahisare Bhawanipur P.S. Singhwara, District Darbhanga Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Collector, Darbhanga 3. The Land Reforms, Deputy Collector, Sadar, Dist. Darbhanga 4. The Treasury Officer, Darbhanga 5. The Accountant General, Bir Chand Patel Path, Patna ----------- 02/ 01.12.2010 None appears for the petitioner. Counsel for the State and the Accountant General are present. Petitioner superannuated while serving as Head Assistant in the office of the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Darbhanga with effect from 30.6.2001. He is aggrieved by the order dated 7.9.2001, Annexure-3, passed by the Senior Accounts Officer of the office of the Accountant General, whereunder it has been held that petitioner’s salary was erroneously fixed in the scale of ` 5000- 8000/- with effect from 1.6.1997 and with reference to the calculation made in the order dated 7.9.2001, a sum of ` 52,092/- has been directed to be recovered from the provisional pension amount payable to the petitioner. In the writ petition, it has been contended by the petitioner that his salary in the scale of ` 5000- 8000/- was 2 fixed by the authorities with effect from 1.6.1997 without there being any misrepresentation by the petitioner and as the petitioner is not responsible for such erroneous fixation, the amount paid in excess be not recovered from the amount payable to the petitioner as pension. Recovery of the amount from the pension payable to the superannuated employee has a serious financial burden on the depleted resources of the retired employee. In this connection, reference is required to be made to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Syed Abdul Qadir & ors. Vrs. State of Bihar & Ors., reported in 2009(2) PLJR 74(SC). Perusal of the aforesaid judgment indicates that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has deprecated the practice of the authorities to recover the amount after the retirement of the Government Servant provided the Government Servant is not found to have indulged in misrepresentation. From the order passed by the Senior Accounts Officer of the office of the Accountant General dated 7.9.2001, Annexure-3, it does not appear that on the representation of the petitioner, his salary was fixed in the scale of ` 5000- 8000/-. 3 As the petitioner is not found to have made any representation for fixation of his higher salary, I am of the view that after his retirement, the authorities ought not to have taken steps for recovery of the amount paid in excess to him. Accordingly, order dated 7.9.2001, Annexure-3 passed by the Senior Accounts Officer of the office of the Accountant General and the consequential order passed by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Sadar, Darbhanga, bearing letter No. 409 dated 8.7.2002, Annexure-5 are quashed with direction to the authorities to refund the amount of ` 52,092/- as early as possible. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. Arjun/ ( V. N. Sinha, J.)