IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1519 of 2008 Vishwanath Singh, S/O Late Bhola Singh, resident of Sri Krishna Nagar, P.S. Motihari Town, District- East Champaran. ………… Petitioner Versus 1.The State Of Bihar 2.The Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 3.The Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Finance Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 4.The Director, Primary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 5.The Commissioner, Tirhut Division at Muzaffarpur 6.The District Magistrate, East Champaran at Motihari 7.The District Education Officer, East Champaran at Motihari 8.The District Superintendent of Education, East Champaran at Motihari 9.The Head Master, Govt. Middle School, Raghunathpur, District- East Champaran. ………….. Respondents ----------- 3. 22/06/2011 From the chart enclosed with Annexure-A to the counter affidavit, it appears that petitioner along with 22 others were granted B.Sc. trained scale with effect from 1.4.1980. They were also granted time bound promotion in scale and promotion to the post of Headmaster. Petitioner was granted first time bound promotion with effect from 16.5.1984 only and was promoted as Headmaster on 3.6.1987. The chart shows that this was done in the light of some orders passed by this Court in one C.W.J.C.No.6834 of 1999. Subsequently, respondents received some complaint that the petitioner had wrongly got 2 promotion in the time bound scale and as Headmaster. Hence, an enquiry was initiated and petitioner was put under suspension with effect from 13.10.2000. After enquiry, report was submitted by the District Education Officer, vide Annexure-1 dated 8.12.2000. In the report, the District Education Officer mentioned that the petitioner had been wrongly victimized. Along with petitioner, large number of other incumbents had also been granted promotion and time bound promotion as per the decision of the Establishment Committee. He expressed that thus action ought to have been taken against all the persons. It is stated that this report was considered and thereafter suspension of the petitioner was revoked with effect from 25.1.2001. Petitioner thus stood reinstated on the post of Headmaster and to the scale and in that capacity he superannuated with effect from 3.7.2003. By the impugned order, as contained in Annexure-4, difference of amount of enhanced salary paid to the petitioner on account of promotion to the post of Headmaster and to the time bound promotion in scale has been ordered 3 to be recovered. Annexure-5 is the calculation of the amount which shows that altogether an excess amount of Rs.24,145.68 has been found to have been paid to the petitioner on account of such grant of scale and promotion. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon judgment of a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Binod Singh Vs. The Bihar State Electricity Board, 2007(3) PLJR 398, to submit that since grant of scale and promotion to the petitioner was on account of a conscious decision of the competent body, namely, Establishment Committee, any amount paid on that account cannot be recovered now, even if the decision is found to be incorrect. He also submits that since petitioner has superannuated and the amount was paid to him prior to his superannuation and during his service period, the same cannot be recovered from his pensionary benefits. Respondents in the counter affidavit have relied on a judgment of learned single Judge of this Court dated 21.11.2003 passed in C.W.J.C.No.6834 of 1999, in which learned single Judge has held that any amount paid to the Government servant wrongly can be 4 recovered. This judgment of learned single Judge, relied upon by the respondents, is of a date prior to the Full Bench judgment and hence it is no longer a law. Respondents have not asserted that grant of scale and promotion to the petitioner was merely a ministerial act without any decision by the competent authority. In the circumstances, this Court finds that the law laid down by the Full Bench clearly covers the case of the petitioner. Accordingly, this writ application is allowed. Impugned order, as contained in Annexure-4 is quashed. Obviously, since the order of recovery is quashed, no action is permissible on the basis of Annexure-5. Pradeep/ ( J. N. Singh,J.)