IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1710 of 2011 KISHORI PRASAD S/O LATE CHOTTEE LAL, R/O MOHALLA CHANKYAPURI MACHALIGALI RAJA BAZAR,PATNA PS SHASTRINAGAR DISTT-PATNA-------PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (CENTRAL REGION) OLD SECRETARIATE, PATNA 3. THE SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE ,PATNA 4. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE I/C ACCOUNTS PATNA 5. THE DISTRICT ACCOUNTS OFFICER, PATNA 6. THE A.G. BIHAR,PATNA-------------RESPONDENTS ----------- 2 30.6.2011 Heard learned counsel for the parties. According to the petitioner the decision of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna contained in annexure-5 has hit him after retirement because it not only reduces the pay to which the petitioner was entitled to but even some recovery is going to the effected. The background to issuance of annexure-5 is that the petitioner was promoted on the post of head clerk with effect from 1.11.97. Besides other benefits petitioner had to be extended pay protection and certain amount was added to his pay scale under the said head. Down the line this pay protection was merged and a new pay scale in the sense was made available to the petitioner. All subsequent revisions obviously thereafter were on the basis of basic error that R.P.P (pay protection) can never be added to the basic pay to create a new pay scale. After retirement of the petitioner when the service records were forwarded to the authority for issuance of authorization and sanction of his pension etc. this anomaly was - 2 - discovered and this led to recalculation keeping the element of pay protection out from the revisions from 1.11.97 onwards and that is the reason for issuance of annexure-5. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that now he has retired no such action can be taken. Secondly he states that the elementary mistake committed by Superintendent of Police reworking of the pay scale because the earlier calculation was correct and bona fidely he was deriving benefits over the years. Whatever the background or the reason for the earlier benefit at the time of settlement of final claim an employee must beget what he is entitled to. If the clerical mistake and mischief comes to the notice of the authority then it has to be corrected and nobody can get or demand more than what he is entitled to. The Court has gone through the recalculation. The authorities have taken the element of RPP out of the calculation and based on which naturally the excess amount earlier drawn will have to be adjusted from the retirement dues which is going to the authorized or has been authorized by the order of Senior Superintendent of Police vide annexure-5. It is a case which has been more made than made out. It is obvious that the petitioner was drawing excess salary to which he is not entitled. The Court is not required to go into the circumstances under which the pay scale had been earlier worked - 3 - out in favour of the petitioner but there could be an inference that the petitioner had some role to play on this issue because he was the head clerk. The stand of the Accountant General is in the similar terms in paraghraph-5 of the counter affidavit that RPP can never be added to the basic pay and no future revision can be done on that basis. This writ application has no merit and it is dismissed. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J.)