IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2364 of 2005 SMT.KAMLA DEVI D/O LATE MUCHCHU CHAUDHARY R/O VILLAGE- SASTRINAGAR PS- BAGHA DISTT- WEST CHAMPARAN --------------------- PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL BIHAR,PATNA 3. THE DIRECTOR OF PRIMARY EDUCATION,BIHAR,PATNA 4. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION,BETTIAH 5. THEREGIONAL EDUCATION OFFICER, NARKATIAGANJ, W,CHAMPARAN, BETTIAH 6. THE AREA OFFICER, NARKATIAGANJ, WEST CHAMPARAN, BETTAIH-------------RESPONDENTS ----------- 5 3.2.2009 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner was an Assistant Teacher who superannuated on 30.11.2001. She has had to file the present writ application because certain sum of money amounting to Rs. 18,888/- was sought to be recovered as excess payment of salary due to wrong fixation of her pay from 1.1.1996. The deduction has been made from the gratuity of the petitioner based on an objection raised by District Superintendent of Education, Bettiah as contained in annexure-1. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the deduction has been made behind the back of the petitioner after his superannuation and the pay scale given to the petitioner was not different to the pay scale given to similarly situated employees. It is further urged that the pay scale and the replacement scale was fixed by the competent authority and the petitioner had no role to get the said fixed by any kind of misrepresentation or fraud played on his behalf. In the counter affidavit the stand of the - 2 - respondents is that the replacement scale was given to the petitioner from 1.1.96 on the basis of Middle Trained Teachers’ Scale but instead of replacement scale of Middle Trained Teachers which is Rs. 2750 – 4400/- the replacement scale of Rs. 3050- 4590 was granted to him. But in the counter affidavit there is no explanation as to how the said benefit came to be granted by the concerned authority. Since the petitioner was an assistant teacher there was no occasion for him to get the replacement scale fixed in the service book. Law is being what it is in the Full Bench decision in the case of Ram Binod Singh vs. Bihar State Electricity Board & Ors along with other analogous cases reported in 2007(3) PLJR 398 the order of deduction from the gratuity amount contained in annexure-1 is quashed. The respondents are directed to refund the deducted amount of Rs. 18,888/- to the petitioner, preferably within a period of three months from the date of communication or production of a copy of this order. This writ application is disposed of with the above direction. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J.)