IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3082 of 2006 SUDAMA PRASAD SINGH SON OF LATE BIRANCHI SINGH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MALHIPUR (GANCHI TOLA) P.S. BARAUNI, BEGUSARAI. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, OLD SECRETARIAT, PATNA. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PATNA. 4. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, BIHAR, PATNA 5. THE ASSISTANT ACCOUNTS OFFICER, OFFICE OF ACCONTANT GENERAL, BIHAR, PATNA. ----------- 3 02/11/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the Accountant General, Bihar. Reason for raising objection in terms of annexure-1 by the office of the Accountant General, Bihar does not seem to be misplaced if it is read in light of the Circulars issued by the State from time to time. Petitioner was granted benefit of increment without passing Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination within a year of the said promotion. He only passed the said examination in the year 1998 instead of 1980. It is only in this background that order was passed for recovery while fixing pension of the petitioner by the office of the Accountant General on verification of his - 2 - service book. Submission of the learned counsel is that all these have been done after retirement of the petitioner without any notice, without any proper proceeding or the so called power vested under the State to effect such recovery in the matter. Order of recovery, therefore, needs to be interfered with especially when more than 17 years had gone past when the petitioner was drawing the benefit of increment creating a situation which was widely known to the respondents and which would have been evident from perusal of the service book but no objection was taken or made at any stage till after the stage when the settlement of retiral dues was sought to be made by the Accountant General, Bihar. This Court has no hesitation in recording that the objection raised by the Accountant General seems to be correct but whether the fall out of the same would be recoverable which can be made is another issue. Law being what it is, it has been held by this Court in several decisions including recent decision rendered in the case of Daya Shankar Singh Vs. State of Bihar and others reported in 2010(3) P.L.J.R., 220 that even though the - 3 - objection was correct, but recovery cannot be permitted after 17 years and that too after retirement without proper notice or proceeding in this regard. The sum outcome is that the recovery effected against the petitioner stands quashed and his pension and other things will be fixed on the basis of increment from the date, petitioner passed examination and not from the date which was granted earlier. Respondents will be free to re-work the pension of the petitioner, if it has not been done. With the above modification in the impugned order, this writ application is disposed of. AMIN/ (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)