IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.908 of 2003 Bijendra Prasad Singh, S/o Late Mahavir Kumar Singh, Village & P.O. Gamail, P.S. Bihariganj, District Madhepura. --------- Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. Regional Deputy Director of Education, Saharsa. 3. District Education Officer, Saharsa. 4. Headmaster Hazi Nazibullah High School, Surajapur, Supaul. 5. District Account Officer, Saharsa. --------- Respondents ----------- 4 02.07.2010 No one appears on behalf of the petitioner. The prayer of the writ petitioner in this writ application reads as below:- “1. That this is an application for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents to pay the amount of Rs. 15,880/- recovered from his salary as well as the amount deducted from his salary since July 2002 till date and further amount deducted during the pendency of this writ application in the garb of recovery of the amount paid in excess to the petitioner due to wrong fixation of pay as is evident from the certificate issued by the respondent no.4 as the same amount was paid due to the fault of the authorities and not due to any fault fraud or misrepresentation on behalf of the petitioner and as per several decisions of this Hon’ble Court and Hon’ble Apex Court in Sahib Ram case the same cannot be recovered as it 2 will be gross injustice and above all the same is being recovered without any notice or showcause or intimation as to why this recovery is being made which itself is highly illegal, arbitrary, malafide, discriminatory and violative of Article 14 and 21 besides principles of natural justice and fair play, or for any other direction or directs which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case including stay of the recovery by the respondents from the salary of the petitioner with immediate effect.” This Court, in fact, while considering the aforesaid prayer of the petitioner, had directed the petitioner to produce the relevant order by which direction had been given for recovery of the amount from the petitioner. Despite such order having been passed on 17.2.2003, no such affidavit has been filed by the petitioner enclosing the order of recovery till date. Once this Court would therefore find that the order of recovery was passed earlier and the same was only given effect to, the prayer made by the petitioner cannot be allowed unless the earlier order of such recovery is held to be bad. Inasmuch as, the said order has 3 not been produced till date, the petitioner has no cause of action to maintain this writ application. That being so, this application is wholly misconceived and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)