IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15222 of 2010 5 19.1.2011 1. SHREE NARAYAN JHA S/O LATE MAHABIR JHA R/O VILL KALYANPUR BASTI, P.S.MOHIUDDIN NAGAR, DISTT-SAMASTIPUR …. PETITIONER Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND BROADCASTING , A-WING SHASTRI BHAWAN, SANSAD MARG, NEW DELHI 2. DIRECTOR GENERAL , DOORDARSAN, DOORDARSAN BHAWAN COPERNICUS MARG, NEW DELHI 3. PAY & ACCOUNTS OFFICER, PAY & ACCOUNTS OFFICE, DOORDARSAN BHAWAN GOLF GREEN, KOLKATA 4. DIRECTOR, DOORDARSAN KENDRA PATNA 5. SR. ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, DOORDARSAN KENDRA PATNA …. RESPONDENTS ------ For the Petitioner : Mr Ambar Nath Banerjee, Adv. For the Respondents : Mr Raghib Ahsan, ASG ------- Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Union of India. Petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment and order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna dated 21.7.2010 whereby OA No.361 of 2004 preferred by the petitioner was dismissed. On going through the initial order of fitment contained in Annexure-2 dated 15.9.1995 we find that as - 2 - per the Supreme Court order dated 25.11.1994 the pay scale of Rs.550- 900 was applicable with effect from 1.1.1978 and a higher pay scale with effect from 1.1.1986. The fitment with effect from 1.1.1978 was required to be made showing the basic pay to be Rs.550 on that date but on account of a clear error, the basic pay has been shown as Rs.575. That error has been subsequently corrected as is apparent from Annexure-6 series where the fitment on 1.1.1978 has been corrected and basic pay has been shown as Rs.550. The order contained in Annexure- 2 wherein the fitment was wrongly done, indicates that the fixation is subject to the audit observation and over payment made will be recovered from the concerned employee without any notice. Learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that even if the fitment has been rightly corrected, this Court should prevent the respondents from making any recovery because the error was on account of wrong or misapplication of relevant rules and not on account of fraud or misrepresentation by - 3 - the petitioner. He has relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Syed Abdul Qadir & ors. V. the State of Bihar & Ors.,[ 2009 (2) PLJR 74 (SC)]. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Union of India has referred to several judgments mentioned in the impugned order of the Tribunal and has distinguished the present case on the basis of notes given in Annexure-2 regarding recovery in case the fitment is found to be erroneous. Having considered the rival submissions, we are of the view that order of the Tribunal requires no interference. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. sk (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (Dr Ravi Ranjan, J.)