IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3653 of 2006 RAMDEO SINGH SON OF LATE BANSHDHARI SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE +P.O – MANI, P.S. BIKRAMGANJ, DISTRICT – ROHTAS RETIRED S.I. FROM BIKRAMGANJ PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE, DISTRICT – ROHTAS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH COMMISSIONER-CUM-SECRETARY, HEALTH SERVICES, BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE DIRECTOR-IN-CHIEF HEALTH SERVICES, BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE CIVIL SURGEON-CUM-CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER ROHTAS AT SASARAM. 4. THE INCHARGE MEDICAL OFFICER PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE, BIKRAMGANJ, ROHTAS. 5. ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, BIHAR, BIRCHAND PATEL PATH, PATNA – 800001. ----------- 03. 25.06.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, State as also the Accountant General. This writ application was filed on 20th of March 2006 against the order of recovery of a sum of Rs. 61,306/- on the ground that the petitioner, during his service period was paid the pay scale to which he was not entitled. Petitioner retired on 31st of October 2004. It is submitted and stated in paragraph – 9 of the writ application that the pay scale, which was paid to the petitioner even if it is not correctly fixed, he cannot be held responsible since there is no misrepresentation or fraud at any time on the part of the petitioner. Accordingly, petitioner has assailed the order of recovery 2 as contained in letter no. 152 dated 14.06.2005, vide Annexure -2 of the writ application. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent no. 5, stating therein that the necessary pension payment memo has been issued on the pay scale admissible to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondents are not in a position to refute the submissions of the petitioner that there was no misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the petitioner for getting enhanced pay scale. The amount of Rs. 61,306/- has been recovered from the gratuity paid to the petitioner after his retirement. The petitioner has relied upon a decision of the Apex Court as also of this court in support of his contention that no amount can be recovered after the retirement on the ground that the petitioner was given a higher pay scale in absence of any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of this petitioner vide paragraph -9 of the writ application. Considering the submission of the parties, this court is of the opinion that after retirement of the petitioner, the aforesaid amount ought not to have been recovered from the gratuity of the petitioner. In such view of the matter, respondent no. 3 shall examine the claim of the petitioner and upon such examination if there is no fraud or misrepresentation on 3 the part of the petitioner for fixing the higher pay scale, the aforesaid amount of Rs. 61,306/- which is recovered from the gratuity of the petitioner be refunded back to the petitioner. Such action be taken expeditiously, preferably within a period of four months on receipt/production of certified copy of the present order. The writ application stands disposed of with the above observations/directions. Jagdish/ ( Shailesh Kumar Sinha, J.)