IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6872 of 2002 RAM DAS MAHTO, son of Masudhan Mahto, resident of village- Gadi Talwa, P.O- Telwa Bazar, Via Simultala, Dist-Jamui Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through its Chief Secretary, Patna 2. Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 3. The Accountant General ( A.E),II, Bihar and Jharkhand, Birchand Patel Path, Patna 4. Senior Accounts Officer, office of the Accountant General ( A.E),II, Bihar and Jharkhand, Birchand Patel Path 5. District Superintendent of Education, Jamui ------------ For the petitioner: Mr. Prabhat Ranjan Singh, Advocate For the State: Mr. Prasoon Sinha, GA 3 For the Accountant General: Mr. J. P. Karn, Advocate ----------- 6 06-02-2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the Accountant General. Petitioner is aggrieved by the action of Accountant General as appearing from letter issued from his office dated 11.12.2001 contained in annexure-1. That letter addressed to the District Superintendent of Education, Jamui shows that the service book and pension papers of the petitioner, a retired Headmaster, were being returned in original. The letter also shows that in response to letter of the District Superintendent of Education, Jamui bearing no. 2070 dated 18.10.2001 the papers were being returned and it was found that excess payment of salary had been made to the petitioner from 01.03.1989 onwards. The letter also points out the correct pay payable to the petitioner for the relevant period in accordance with the pay scale to which he was entitled in law. On behalf of the petitioner it has been submitted that petitioner retired on 28.02.1998 from the post of Headmaster of - 2 - Middle School, Karngarh, Chandramandi, Chakai, district, Jamui and it was not proper for the authorities to hold against the petitioner that he has withdrawn salary in higher scale after four years of his retirement and to order for recovery. The issue as to under what circumstances recovery of excess amount paid unauthorizedly can be recovered was decided by a full Bench of this court recently in the case of Ram Binod Singh vs the Bihar State Electricity Board, 2007 (3), PLJR, 398. Paragraph 28 of the judgement clearly indicates that in appropriate facts and situation of a case, mistake, clear, plain and simple, leading to wrong grant of increment, time bound promotion or wrong fixation of pay can justify recovery from an employee who has already superannuated. Learned counsel for the State and Accountant General have pointed out that as Headmaster the petitioner was also drawing and disbursing authority. On behalf of the petitioner it was replied that before determining as to how much money was paid in excess the petitioner should have been given opportunity of hearing or filing representation in the matter In view of aforesaid submission and the law laid down by the full Bench noticed above, this court is of the view that in law there is no impediment in making recovery from the petitioner’s pension or any other amount payable to him by the State on the ground that he has been paid or he has drawn salary in excess of the permissible pay scale. However, before fixing the quantum etc. petitioner is entitled to make a representation in the matter. Hence, the writ petition is - 3 - disposed of with a direction to the District Superintendent of Education, Jamui, respondent no.5, to consider petitioner’s representation in the matter, if filed within two months from today, and then make a final determination of amount allegedly paid in excess to the petitioner. Thereafter he may proceed to make the recovery, if required, in accordance with law. BKS/ (Shiva Kirti Singh,J.)