IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6599 of 2005 ***** Ramjee Kumar son of Late Hansho Kumar, resident of village- Bhagwanpur Chakshekhu, P.S. Dalsingsarai, District-Samastipur. …. …. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the District Education Officer, District Samastipur. 2. The Head Master, Govt. High School, Raghopur, District Samastipur. 3. Union of India through the Accountant General, Bihar. …. …. Respondents ----------- 2. 18.3.2009. After many years of service petitioner retired from the post of Clerk on 31.7.2004 from High School, Raghopur in the District of Samastipur. Soon after his retirement his pension and gratuity was fixed but by virtue of order dated 27.12.2004 contained in Annexure-3 a sum of Rs.75,639.00 was sought to be recovered since the petitioner passed the Hindi noting and drafting examination only on 13.9.2003. The excess pay by way of increment under the said head, therefore, was ordered to be recovered. The consequential action of recovery was also carried out, which is evident from Annexure-4 dated 9.3.2005. The act of the respondents has compelled the petitioner to approach the High Court for quashing of Annexure-3 and a direction for payment of the deducted amount. Learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to my notice a recent decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Syed Abdul Qadir & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors., reported in 2009(1) Supreme Today 163, where the Hon’ble Supreme Court after considering the matter originating from the State of Bihar with regard to recovery post-retirement has categorically laid down that excess amount paid to an employee cannot be recovered after his retirement if no misrepresentation - 2 - or fraud is established against the employee and the grant of such benefit was by the respondent authorities to which the petitioner has no role. Learned counsel for the respondents have filed a counter affidavit and taken a strand that even according to the petitioner he passed the Hindi noting and drafting examination only in the year 2003, which is about a year before his superannuation but he has been drawing the benefit of increment under the said head for a long period of time. Learned counsel for the State, however, does not explain as to how this benefit or the increment came to accrue to the petitioner and why this benefit was allowed in favour of the petitioner for many a years. If no steps have been taken to correct the mistake even if it was one, keeping the ratio of the decision rendered in the case of Syed Abdul Qadir (supra) the petitioner has made out a case for interference. The writ application is allowed. Annexure-3 is quashed. Direction is issued upon the District Education Officer, Samastipur that he shall take steps for refund of the deducted amount to the petitioner preferably within a period of four months from the date of communication/production of a copy of this order. The writ application stands allowed. Pawan/- (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)