IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5933 of 2005 ***** Ramkrishan Singh, Son of Late Basudeo Singh, resident of Ishwari Nagar, P.O.+P.S.- Phulwarisharif, Distt. Patna. …. …. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary Home (Spl), Secretariat, Patna. 2. The Director General of Police, Secretariat, Patna. 3. The Zonal Inspector General of Police (Patna). 4. The Deputy Inspector General of Police (Patna) Central Range, Patna. 5. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna. 6. Accountant General of Bihar, Patna. …. …. Respondents ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Gajendra Kumar Jha, Advocate For the Accountant General : Dr. Mayanand Jha, Junior Counsel to Sri Jagannath Jha, Sr. Advocate For the State : Mr. Gyan Prakash, Assistant Counsel to Government Advocate-VII ------------- 4. 12.2.2009. Petitioner retired from the post of Sub Inspector on 30.6.2003. While his case was recommended to the District Accounts Officer for fixing his pension and retiral dues, an objection was raised with regard to wrong fixation of pay of the petitioner way back in the year 1986. It was his opinion that the petitioner was entitled to the scale of Rs.1320/- in stead of Rs.1700/-. Based on that, the impugned order dated 2.8.2004 contained in Annexure-1 came to be passed where a sum of Rs.1,11,968/- has been adjusted from the gratuity as well as leave encashment. In the counter affidavit which has been filed by the respondents, they have taken a stand that when the objection was raised by the District Accounts Officer matter came to be examined and the anomaly was found to be in order, therefore, a fresh District Order - 2 - No.3675/04 came to be issued refixing his pay-scale, justifying the order of recovery. The stand taken by the respondents is no stand in view of settled position in law that unless they demonstrate that this benefit of pay-scale given to the petitioner during his service way back in the year 1986 was either by any fraud or misrepresentation committed by the petitioner. If it is not so then post superannuation the respondents cannot recover the excess payment made during the period of service of the petitioner. In this regard the decision of the Full Bench, 2007(3) PLJR 398, Ram Binod Singh v. Bihar State Electricity Board (F.B.). In fact the above legal position has also been recently reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a matter which traveled from the State of Bihar in matters of payment of certain benefit to school teachers. The law being what it is, the order contained in Anenxure-1 dated 2.8.2004 stands quashed. The writ application is allowed with a direction upon the respondents to pay back the above amount if it has already been recovered from the petitioner, however, with a direction that pension of the petitioner would be fixed on the basis of the current pay- scale to which he is entitled to under law. The writ application stands allowed. Pawan/- (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)