IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9026 of 1997 MD.ZAFAR HUSSAIN, son of late Md. Yasin, resident of Mohalla Mufli (Nakhas), P.S. Hajipur Town, District Vaishali at present posted as Assistant Urdu Teacher in Y.N.Singh School, Baghi, District Muzaffarpur … Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Director, Secondary Education, Bihar, Patna 3. The R.D.D.E. Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur 4. The District Education Officer, Muzaffarpur 5. The Headmaster Y.N.Singh School, Baghi, District Muzaffarpur, District Muzaffarpur … Respondents. ----------- 7. 22.7.2010 No one appears for the petitioner. Counsel for the State is present. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows: “A. For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing the order issued in letter no.21 dated 6.8.1997 as well as letter no. 148 dated 23.9.1996 by which the respondent no.5 the Headmaster of the school has directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 10502.70 in the District Treasury and a copy of the challan was directed to submit before him (the Headmaster). B. For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction restraining the respondent from the deducting the amount from the salary of the petitioner. C. For issuance of writ, order or 2 direction commanding the respondents to make payment to full salary to the petitioner.” From the records of this case it would appear that such recovery as directed by the impugned order dated 23.9.1996 was stayed by this Court vide order dated 17.11.1997 due to non-filing of the counter affidavit. Such counter affidavit has not been filed even till today and therefore, this Court, therefore, while remitting the matter back to the authority for reconsideration as to whether there was any misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner in getting the benefit of payment of excess salary between 1.4.1981 to 31.3.1992 as pointed out by the Accountant General in their audit report, would direct the authority to pass a reasoned order only after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. If upon perusal of the materials on record it would be found that some excess amount was paid due to mis- understanding/ wrong interpretation of the Government circular by the concerned authority and the petitioner had not made any mis-representation about his such claim, 3 the petitioner would not be held liable for refund of the amount whose recovery has already been stayed by this Court. The petitioner, however, would be only entitled to legitimate pay scale which has been pointed out in the report of the Accountant General. Any amount, however, which was already recovered from the petitioner, would not be refundable to the petitioner in the event the authority would find that the petitioner was not entitled for such excess payment as held in the report of the Accountant General and included in the impugned order. With the aforementioned observation and direction, this application is disposed of. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/