IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.240 of 2003 ALOK KUMAR, son of Late Lakshmi Narayan Singh, resident of Village- Baruani, P. O. Garh Barauni, District- Supaul… Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. District Superintendent of Education, Saharsa. 3. Principal, Primary School, Parashwanna, Circle Nauhatta, District- Saharsa. 4. District Education Extension Officer, Nauhatta, Saharsa. 5. Accountant General, Bihar, Patna. 6. Senior Accounts Officer, Accountant General Office, Bihar, Patna. … Respondents. ----------- 3. 02.07.2010 Heard counsel for the petitioner, counsel for the State as also counsel for the Accountant General. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ petition reads as follows:- “1. That this is an application for issuance of an appropriate writ order or direction for quashing Annexure-1 whereby the Senior Account Officer, Office of Accountant General, Bihar, Patna vide his letter No. Pen-12 F-P-81 dt. 16.8.2001 addressed to the Superintendent of Education, Saharsa a copy of which has also been given to the petitioner order for recovery/adjustment of the excess amount paid to the Late father of the petitioner due to wrong fixation of pay (as excess increment has been given to the Late father of the petitioner who died in harness from the post of Assistant Teacher, Primary School, Pareshwanna, Nauhatta Circle, District- Saharsa) even though the excess amount was paid due to fault of the authorities and not due to any fraud, fault or misrepresentation on behalf of the Late father of the petitioner and thus 2 recovering the same is illegal, unfair, unjust, arbitrary, malafide, discriminatory against Article 14 and also against decisions of this Hon’ble Court and Hon’ble Apex Court or for any other direction or directions which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.” Mr. Ebrahim Kabir, learned counsel for the petitioner very fairly would submit that he would not question the re-determination of pay of the father of the petitioner, the employee, as made by the Accountant General but then since the father of the petitioner had died in harness on 31.10.99, the petitioner, the legal heir and successor should not be subjected to any recovery of an excess amount allegedly drawn by the father of the petitioner in his life time for the period 1.4.1987 till his death. Considering the fact that the respondents have not filed any counter- affidavit suggesting any fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the father of the petitioner, this Court would hold that no recovery would be made from payable death-cum-retirement benefit of the father of the petitioner but then whatever has been ultimately communicated by the Office of the Accountant 3 General in the impugned order dated 16.08.2001 by way of pay fixation of the father of the petitioner would form basis for calculation for payment of all retirement benefit. With the aforementioned observation and direction, this writ petition is disposed of. kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)