IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12140 of 2009 RAM NAGINA PASWAN, S/O- LATE CHATTU PASWAN RESIDENT OF CHAKDIN, P.S. ASHTHAWAN, DISTRICT NALANDA. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DIRECTOR, HIGHER SECONDARY, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, NALANDA AT BIHAR SHARIF. 5. THE TREASURY OFFICER, NALANDA AT BIHAR SHARIF. 6. THE PRINCIPAL, HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, CHAKDIN, P.S. ASTHAWAN, DISTRICT NALANDA. ----------- 03. 07.11.2009 Heard the parties. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent – State. The grievance of the petitioner is that the letter no. 916 dated 28.05.2008, issued by the District Education Officer , Nalanda whereby the Treasury Officer was directed to adjust the excess amount taken by the petitioner. Thereafter, steps have taken for recovery of the same from the amount of pension and gratuity. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the aforesaid order as contained in Annexure-4 is absolutely bad in law since no amount can be recovered from the petitioner after his retirement for making the alleged excess payment, the authorities cannot attribute any fault on the part of the petitioner or misrepresentation which resulted in making such payment. Notwithstanding the above, the aforesaid order as contained in Annexure -4 was issued without giving any opportunity to the petitioner to satisfy the authority that no excess amount can be said to have been drawn by the petitioner nor recovery can be made from his pensionary benefits. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State is not in a position to refute the statement that any notice was given to the petitioner before passing the order as contained in Annexure-4. In the above circumstances, the order contained in Annexure-4 cannot be sustained which appears to have been passed in violation of principles of natural justice. The same is accordingly, quashed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that within a period of three weeks, the petitioner shall be filing a representation before the respondent no. 4 with regard to the grievance that no amount which is said to have been drawn by the petitioner in excess as indicated in Annexure-4 can be recovered from the pensionary benefits besides the claim for salary for certain period. In case such representation is filed within a period of six weeks from today giving the relevant details and the copy of the relevant documents in support of his claim as also the certified copy of the present order the respondent no. 4 shall consider the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within a period of four months on receipt of such representation so that the grievances of the petitioner as raised in the representation be redressed and admissible payment along with statuary interest could be made without further delay. However, if the claims are found not admissible the petitioner shall be informed of the same with the reasons thereof. The writ application is disposed of with the above observations/directions. Jagdish/- ( Shailesh Kumar Sinha,J.)