IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13881 of 2004 SHATRUGHNA SHARMA S/O LATE RAJ NANDAN SHARMA R/O VILLAGE PATAWNA PO- SIDHIPUR PS- PALIGANJ, DISTT- PATNA -------------------PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. MEDICAL OFFICER-IN-CHARGE, P.H.C.PALIGANJ,PATNA 3. THE CIVIL SURGEON-CUM-CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER,PATNA 4. THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH,GOVT OF BIHAR,PATNA 5. THE COMMISSIONER, DEPATMENT OF HEALTH GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 6. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL,BIHAR,PATNA 7. SENIOR ACCOUNTS OFFICER, IN THE OFFICE OF THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, BIHAR,PATNA--------RESPONDENTS ----------- 4 5.2.2009 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order contained in annexure-2 by virtue of which a sum of Rs.76,376/- has been ordered to be recovered from the post retiral dues of the petitioner on the basis of an objection raised by the Accountant General with regard to fixation of pay scale of the petitioner while he was in service. Contention of the petitioner is that the pay scale given to him was authorized by the competent authority way back in the year, 1981 itself and thereafter he has drawn his salary and other emoluments on such authorization. Never an objection was raised during the service period of petitioner by the authority and only after the petitioner retired in the year 1999 and when the final authorization of pension was to be made an anomaly was pointed out by the respondent Accountant General and the order of recovery came to be made. Primary contention of the petitioner is that the benefit of higher pay scale, if at all, was not obtained by the - 2 - petitioner by any kind of misrepresentation or fraud played in this regard. Service Book of the petitioner would show that this endorsement has been made and authorized by the competent authority from time to time and the petitioner has been allowed to retire with the said pay scale all along. The stand of the State is that the recovery has to be made because the Accountant General has raised objections. The stand of Accountant General is that the pay scale given to the petitioner does not match the notification in this regard and at no point of time the petitioner has denied the fact that the pay scale given to him was not correct pay scale. It is the duty of the Accountant General to point out such anomaly where there is outlay of money which may not be in consonance with the rules or circulars of the State Government. The Court does not find any fault in the action of the Accountant General but the law being what it is as has been laid down in a recent Full Bench decision in the case of Ram Binod Singh vrs. Bihar State Electricity Board & Ors along with other analogous cases reported in 2007 (3) PLJR 398 as well as in another decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 16.12.2008 in the case of Syed Abdul Qadir & Ors. vrs. State of Bihar & Ors reported in 2009 (1) Supreme Today 163, the order of recovery contained in annexure-2 is hereby quashed. If the recovery has already been made then the petitioner will be entitled to refund. Account General is hereby given liberty to fix - 3 - the pension of the petitioner on the basis of the correct pay scale which includes fixation of wrong pay scale in the 1st time bond and 2nd time bound promotion as well. It is submitted that after such refixation the concerned authority will forward the service book of the petitioner afresh to the Accountant General. This writ application is allowed to the extent indicated above. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J.)