IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12271 of 2008 Kedar Jha, S/o- Late Lalo Jha, resident of village & Post- Pabra, P.S.- Cheriya Bariyarpur, District- Begusarai. …….. Petitioner. VERSUS 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Accountant General Bihar, Patna. 3. The Secretary, Secondary Education, Bihar, Patna. 4. The Director, Secondary Education, Bihar, Patna. 5. The District Education Officer, Begusarai. 6. The Headmaster, Janta High School, Begusarai. …….. Respondents. ----------- Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr. Niraj Kumar. Mr. Pradeep Kumar Sinha. Counsel for the State : Mr. Mohan Kumar Singh, J.C. to S.C.I. ----------- 03 18.03.2009 The petitioner has now two subsisting grievance. The first is that during pendency of this writ petition his other pensionary benefits having been paid, only group insurance remains to be realized and paid along with due interest. Nothing has been said in the counter affidavit as to why the payment is not being sanctioned. His second grievance is with regard to a recent endorsement in his service book with regard to recovery of certain money from him. Petitioner had superannuated on 31st January, 2007 just prior to his superannuation in 2006. His service book has been endorsed showing that he was paid an excess amount of remuneration right from 1981 up to 2005, which is said to be recoverable. Having heard the parties and with their consent the writ petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission itself. So far as group insurance is concerned, I direct the District Education Officer, Begusarai to immediately ensure that the 2 same is sanctioned and released to the petitioner along with interest, unless there is any order of any competent Court or competent authority to the contrary. The same should be done within one month from production of a copy of this order before him. So far as the deductions are concerned, as noted above, they start from 1981 to 2005. The ground disclosed by the respondent is that his pay was wrongly fixed. It has not been stated that petitioner was in any way responsible for inducing this wrong fixation. It is only on a review of facts after 25 years, the mistake committed by the State is being discovered by the State, penalty whereof is to be borne by the petitioner after his retirement that in my view is impermissible. Right to correct a mistake is an inherent right but from that right does not follow the right or restitution as a consequence thereof it comes to restitution of various equitable principles. For a mistake committed by the government petitioner cannot be made to suffer and that too after his superannuation. The demand on this count is set aside accordingly. The writ petition is allowed. Trivedi/ (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)