IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11159 of 2003 GANESH JHA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 18. 27.11.2009. Mr. Amrendra Narayan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Nirmal Kumar Sinha learned AC to AAG 2 and Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh learned counsel representing the Accountant General are present. The petitioner had moved this court for payment of his retiral benefits as well as for commutation of pension and refund of the amount of Rs.32,944/- which had been deducted from his retiral benefits on grounds that his pay scale had incorrectly been fixed. During the pendency of the writ petition, almost the entire retiral benefits had been paid to the petitioner, save and except, the issue of commutation of pension and recovery of Rs.32,944/- as well as some discrepancies with regard to the pension fixation which according to the petitioner, was less by Rs.10/-. Today, when the mater has been taken up, learned counsel representing the petitioner, submits that he does not press his relief with regard to the fixation of the pension amount of 2 the petitioner which has been said to be less by Rs.10/-. By order dated 15.10.2009, this court had allowed the claim of the petitioner regarding the commutation of pension and the Accountant General had been directed to process his claim and pass appropriate orders for authorisation thereof. It is submitted that necessary orders have already been passed regarding the commutation of pension of the petitioner and the said fact has been admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Thus, the only issue which remains for determination is with regard to the amount of Rs.32,944/- deducted from the retiral benefits of the petitioner on the basis of objection raised by the Accountant General with regard to his incorrect pay fixation during his service tenure as Nigrani Karyakarta in the service of the respondents. It is no body’s case that the petitioner had any hand in getting his pay scale fixed nor it is the case of the respondents that the pay fixation had been done by reason of any misrepresentation or fraud committed by this 3 petitioner. It is undisputed position that the pay fixation was done at the administrative level. It is also an admitted position that no notice or hearing was given to the petitioner prior to making deductions. In view of aforesaid position, the impugned action of the respondents in deducting the amount of Rss.32,944/- from the retiral benefits of the petitioner, cannot be sustained for the reasons that the fixation was in no manner attributable to the petitioner and further the impugned action cannot be sustained because it has been carried out in utter violation of the principles of natural justice. The petitioner retired from service on 31.1.2002 and has still been kept engaged in protracted litigation for payment of his retiral dues. The respondents cannot be allowed to withhold the recovery made from his retiral benefits. More for the reasons that the petitioner had no hand in deriving the said benefit nor it was within his knowledge that the same would be recovered if the scale was found to be incorrectly fixed. The impugned action besides 4 being unreasonable and inequitable was also issued in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. In the result, this writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to refund the amount of Rs.32,944/- or such amount found deducted from the retiral benefits of the petitioner within a period of four months from today. In case, the respondents came to a conclusion that the amount deducted from the retiral benefits of the petitioner is lesser than Rs.32,944/-, then in that case, they would be required to serve notice on the petitioner to prove his claim and that should be considered and disposed of within a period of eight weeks The writ petition stands disposed of with the direction aforesaid. ahk (Jyoti Saran,J.)