IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12233 of 2003 GOPAL PRASAD SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 6 25.09.2008 In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for refund of amount of Rs. 12,032/- deducted from his pensionary benefits on account of alleged excess payment to him between the period of 1.3.1989 to 31.1.1995 and also for a direction to the respondents to fix up the pension of the petitioner on the basis of his last pay drawn at Rs. 2300/-, which has been wrongly fixed treating his last pay drawn at Rs. 2200/- and to pay the differences of pension on that account along with differences of amount under different heads as a consequence of treating his last pay drawn at Rs. 2300/-. Petitioner contends that he is covered by Government Letter No. 738 dated 4th September, 1982 by which his pay was protected by giving him extra emoluments in the light of the fact that his juniors were getting higher scale. Therefore, the respondents were not entitled to treat pay protection given to him as wrong and order for recovery of the amount paid to him on that basis. 2 A counter affidavit has been filed and in the counter affidavit a stand has been taken that since the petitioner’s pay was fixed at Rs. 2200/- in the scale, he will be entitle to the benefits on the same and also for the purposes of fixation of pension etc. on that basis only and not on the basis of his last pay drawn at Rs. 2300/-. The petitioner has filed representation before the Director, Primary Education, and the Deputy Director Primary Education called for the all relevant records from the District Superintendent of Education, Patna in respect of the claims of the petitioner. It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that the District Superintendent of Education has not furnish all details of the petitioner to the Deputy Director Education for deciding his claim in context of the said Government Letter. Therefore, it appears that the matter is pending for final decision at the level of Deputy Director, Primary Education. In the circumstances, the petitioner is given liberty to file a fresh representation before the Director, Primary Education enclosing 3 the said Government Letter dated 4th September, 1982 with all details of the service within two months from Today. If, he files the said representation, the Director, Primary Education shall examine the matter in the light of Government letters and circulars and take a final decision within three months from the date of filing of such representation. So far as recovery is concerned, it, prima facie, appears that the amount of personal pay which was paid to the petitioner was on the basis of, may be, plausible interpretation of circulars of the Government. Therefore, in terms of the ratio laid down by the Full Bench in the case of Ram Binod Singh Versus The Bihar State Electricity Board & Others reported in 2007 (3) PLJR 398, the same was not recoverable from the petitioner. Therefore, the order of recovery as contained in Annexure-2, is hereby quashed and the respondents are directed to refund the entire amount recovered from the petitioner from his pensionary benefits within a period of three months from the date of filing of such representation along with a copy of this order. It goes without saying that after 4 examining the case of the petitioner if the Director, Primary Education comes to the conclusion that the petitioner was entitled for fixation of his entire pensionary benefits on the basis of last pay drawn as Rs. 2300/-, the said befits shall be revised accordingly, and arrears on that count shall be paid to him after adjusting the amount paid to him on account of refund of the deducted amount. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays that order of interest on the amount may be passed as the respondents have wrongly deducted from his pensionary benefits and since the order of deduction has been held to be invalid on account of Full Bench judgment of this Court till recently. This Court is not inclined to pass orders for payment of interest on the said amount. The said prayer of the petitioner is refused. With the above observations and directions, this writ application is disposed of. Arvind/ ( J. N. Singh, J.)