IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5818 of 1996 DHARIYA KANT JHA, son of Late Surya Kant Jha, resident of Village Deopura, PS Benipatti, PO Deopura, District Madhubani at present Senior Account Clerk in the office of the Executive Engineer, Triveni Canal Construction Division – Narketiyaganj, West Champaran ….Petitioner Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Joint Secretary to the Government of Bihar, Finance Department, Patna 3. Engineer-in-Chief-cum-commissioner-cum-Special Secretary to the Government of Bihar,Department of (Irrigation), Water Resources Development Department, Patna 4. Chief Engineer, Irrigation, West Champaran 5. Executive Engineer, Triveni Canal Construction Division, Narketiyaganj, West Champaran 6. Treasury Officer, West Champaran, Motihari …Respondents ----------- 08- 17/9/2010 Heard Mr. Madhav Roy for the petitioner, and Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, learned Assistant Counsel to Govt. Pleader no.16. This writ petition seeks quashing of the office order bearing letter no.863, dated 9.11.1995 (Annexure 9), whereby recovery of excess salary paid to the petitioner as Senior Accounts Clerk has been directed. 2. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner was appointed as Store- Keeper by the Chief Administrator, River Valley Project. He had joined as such on 6.3.67 in Baraj 2 Anchal of Gandak Project, Balmikinagar. At that point of time there was no separate cadre of Store-Keeper. The State Government decided to treat the Store- Keeper and the Accounts Clerk in the same cadre and accordingly issued letter dated 18.2.81 to that effect. The petitioner continued to get the money benefits accordingly. The Government reviewed the decision and decided to separate the two, and put them into distinct cadres by order dated 25.4.94 (Annexure 10). This was followed by the impugned order whereby, in pursuance of the recommendations of the 4th and 5th Pay Revision Commissions, appropriate salary was allotted to the petitioner and the excess amounts paid so far has been sought to be recovered leading to the present writ petition.. 3. Identical issue with respect to similarly circumstanced persons had come up for consideration before this Court in CWJC No. 4145 of 1985 (Ram Prasad Ram & Ors. V. State of Bihar &Ors.). The same was disposed of by judgment dated 22.3.95 (Annexure 13). Paragraph-7 of the judgment is relevant in the present context and fully applies to the present case. 3 The same is reproduced hereinbelow:- “7. Since the impugned order has been passed long after the recommendations of the 4th Pay Revision Committee, the respondent authorities are restrained from giving it any retrospective effect and on the strength of the same impugned order, the respondents are restrained from, in any way, initiating any proceeding for the recovery of the excess amount whatever might have been received by the petitioners till the delivery of the judgment.” 4. In view of the position that the first part of the order dated 9.11.95 (Annexure 9), the impugned order, was based on the recommendations of the 4th and 5th Pay Revision Commissions, we are not inclined to interfere with the same. However, we are of the view that the present petitioner is also entitled to the same protection as the petitioners of CWJC No.4145 of 1985. We, therefore, direct that, for the same reasons, there shall be no recovery of the excess amount paid to the petitioner till 9.11.95 (Annexure 9). 5. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. ( S K Katriar ) (Birendra Prasad Verma ) mrl 4