IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC NO.11708 OF 2007 SHITAL RAM, S/O LATE JALDHAR RAM R/O VILLAGE SIRSA BARWA TOLA, P.O. SIRSA COLONY VIA MOTIHARI, P.S. MOTIHARI, DISTRICT EAST CHAMPARAN. …………………PETITIONER. VERSUS 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2.THE COMMISSIONER CUM SECRETARY (PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION, VIKASH BHAWAN, PATNA. 3.DIRECTOR, PRIMARY EDUCATION, VIKASH BHAWAN, PATNA. 4.DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, BETTIAH, DISTRICT WEST CHAMPARAN. 5.DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, BETTIAH, WEST CHAMPARAN. 6.ACCOUNTANT GENERAL OF BIHAR, PATNA, BIRCHAND PATEL PATH, PATNA. 7.DISTRICT TREASURY OFFICER, BETTIAH, WEST CHAMPARAN. ………………………RESPONDENTS. ----------- 02/ 03.11.2011 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the Accountant General. No one appears for the State. The grievance of the petitioner, a retired teacher in this writ application is against recovery of excess amount of his salary to the tune of Rs. 52,377/- from his retirement benefits. Counsel for the petitioner explains that it was on the advise of the Accountant General contained in letter dated 23.02.2006 (Annexure-1) that the Controlling Authority namely the District Superintendent of Education, West Champaran had made such recovery of Rs. 52,377/-. He 2 would submit that after retirement the petitioner could not have been subjected to any such recovery of any alleged excess amount in absence of any fraud or mis- representation made by the petitioner. The difficulty for this Court, however, is that neither the learned counsel for State is present nor he has filed the counter affidavit. This Court is therefore, not aware as to on what circumstances such recovery of alleged excess amount of salary was made from the retirement benefit of the petitioner. The position becomes further complicated due to non filing of the counter affidavit by the office of Accountant General as well. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Accountant General has also only tried to explain on the basis of Annexure-1, the letter of the office of the Accountant General dated 23.02.2006 that it was a mere opinion based on the entries made in the service book of the petitioner and that the matter of recovery of allege excess amount of salary was between the petitioner and the State Government, the employer of the petitioner. 3 In such a situation, this Court would find it expedient in the ends of justice to remit the matter back to the District Education Establishment Committee, the Appointing Authority of the petitioner to examine as to whether the recovery of Rs. 52,377/- from the retirement benefit of the petitioner was made on account of any fraud or misrepresentation played by him. If the committee does not find any such fraud or misrepresentation, it will direct the District Programme Officer, the successor in office of District Superintendent of Education to refund the amount recovered from the petitioner. In any event, the District Education Establishment Committee must decide the issue within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order and also communicate its reasoned order either allowing or rejecting the aforesaid claim of the petitioner. With the aforementioned observation and direction, this application is disposed of. Ranjan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)