IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16147 of 2010 NAWIN KUMAR SON OF LATE MAHAVIR PRASAD SHARMA RESIDENT OF MOHALLA, ATARDAH KACHCHI – PAKKI ROAD, NEAR MAI ASTHAN P.O. RAMNA, P.S. SADAR DISTRICT MUZUFFARPUR, RETIRED ELECTRICIAN IN THE OFFICE OF EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, TUBE WELL DIVISION BELA MUZUFFARPUR. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE SECRETARY, MINOR IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE FINANCE SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE CO-ORDINATOR-CUM-CHIEF ENGINEER, TUBE WELL PROJECT MUZUFFARPUR. 5. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, NORTH TUBE WELL WING MUZUFFARPUR. 6. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, TUBE WELL DIVISION, MUZUFFARPUR. ----------- 02. 27.09.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent – University. The grievance of the petitioner is against the order contained in Memo no. 1269 dated 20th of June 2010 (Annexure- 7) whereby the direction has been issued for recovery of the excess salary said to have been paid to the petitioner during the service period on the ground that the pay scale which was given to him as an electrician was not admissible to him. As such, petitioner continued to receive the said salary between the period 01.01.1971 to 30.06.2010 i.e. till date of his retirement with revision of pay scale from time to time. 2 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in paragraph – 22 of the writ application it is stated that the petitioner cannot be held responsible for fixation of pay scale which was not admissible to him since petitioner did not play any fraud or misrepresentation for fixation of his pay scale and therefore, after his retirement, the excess salary if any paid to the petitioner is not justified to be recovered after his retirement. Learned counsel for the State submits that the aforesaid submission of the petitioner needs to be verified from the service records of the petitioner. In the above circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for expeditious disposal of the pending claims, petitioner proposes to file a representation before the respondent no. 5 with a copy to respondent no. 6. In view of the above, in case such representation stating details of unpaid claims is filed by the petitioner within a period of four weeks along with the certified copy of the present order as also the copy of the relevant documents, if any, in support of the claim, the above respondent shall consider the claims of the petitioner as raised in the representation in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within a period of four months on receipt of such representation which may be disposed of by passing a reasoned order. Upon consideration, if it is found that that there is no misrepresentation/fraud on the part of the petitioner, the 3 amount if already recovered pursuant to Annexure- 7, the same may be refunded back to the petitioner within a period of two months after disposal of the representation. Till the decision on his representation, if the amount is not already recovered the order for recovery (Annexure -7) shall be kept in abeyance. The writ application stands disposed of with the above observations/directions. Jagdish/ ( Shailesh Kumar Sinha, J.)