IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2567 of 2005 ***** Jagtanand Pandey, son of Late Natho Pandey, resident of Village:Singhna, P.O.:Rupow, P.S.:Rupow, District :Nawadah. …. …. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Accountant General, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Director, Statistics Department, Bihar, Patna. 4. The District Statistics Officer, Gaya. 5. The District Magistrate, Gaya. 6. The Treasury Officer, Nawadah. …. …. Respondents ----------- 3. 3.2.2009. Petitioner wants quashing of two orders, which are dated 30.6.2004 and have been annexed as Annexure-2 and 2/A. By virtue of the orders after his retirement in the year 2001 his salary has been refixed and a sum of Rs.13,026/- has been ordered to be recovered. Based on the refixation of his salary even his earned leave was recalculated and a sum of Rs.2,903/- has also been ordered to be recovered. Petitioner challenges the two orders on the ground that the same cannot be done after retirement without a notice or show cause, moreso, the recovery cannot be affected of these amounts when he has already been given these benefits by the respondents while he was in service. Petitioner had no role to play in fixation of his pay. In the counter affidavit the respondents have taken a stand that there was a mistake in fixation of his pay because there was no occasion for the respondents to consider R.P.P., which was the personal pay given to the petitioner in fixation of the pay-scale after his promotion. This has caused error in final fixation of the salary of the petitioner by virtue of which he has drawn a higher salary. - 2 - Keeping the principle laid down by the Full Bench in the case of Ram Binod Singh v. Bihar State Electricity Board (F.B.), 2007(3) PLJR 398, impugned annexures contained in Annexure-2 and 2/A are quashed. Respondents are directed to refund the amount if it has already been deducted from the petitioner. The writ application is allowed. Pawan/- (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)