IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8005 of 1997 RAMASHRAY SINGH, S/O- LATE GANO SINGH, R/O- VILLAGE KUSHEDHI, POLICE STATION BARBIGHA, DISTRICT SHEIKHPURA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE SECRETARY, MINOR IRRIGATION, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR,PATNA 4. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION, BHAGALPUR 5. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION CIRCLE, BHAGALPUR 6. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DIVISION, MUNGER. For The Petitioner : Mr. Siya Ram Shahi, Advocate For The State : Mr. Shyam Kishore Sharma Govt. Advocate No. -V ----------- 10. 19.02.2009 The grievances of the petitioner are that by letter dated 17th of January 1997 as contained in Annexure-8 the respondent no. 6 directed the petitioner to refund back the amount of Rs. 16,859 on account of alleged excess payment of salary etc. paid to him between the period 1st of April, 1981 to 30th of November, 1996 and further directed the petitioner to inform the respondent no.6 as to in how many instalments the above amount be recovered from him. The petitioner assailed the said order of the Executive Engineer as contained in Annexure-5 by filing a writ petition in this court vide C.W.J.C. No. 1468 of - 2 - 1997. The writ application was disposed of by this court vide order dated 26th of March 1997 as contained in Annexure-9 directing the respondent no. 6 to give opportunity to the petitioner so that he could satisfy that no excess amount has been withdrawn and thereafter, the respondent no.6 shall dispose of the matter by a reasoned order with further direction that till final decision no recovery of the alleged excess amount from the salary of the petitioner shall be made. Mr. Siya Ram Shahi learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the earlier order for deduction the amount was later cancelled under the orders of the Chief Engineer as contained in Memo No. 1108 dated 5th of July, 1997 vide Annexure-10 pursuant to the aforesaid order of this court. However, during the pendency of this writ application by letter dated 6th of February 1998 written by the Deputy Secretary, Minor Irrigation, Government of Bihar addressed to the respondent no.-6 vide Annexure-12, a chart was annexed to the said letter with regard to the alleged excess amount. It is submitted that the same was also not specific as to how the alleged excess amount is said to have been paid to the petitioner. In the meantime, the petitioner retired on 29th of February, 2000 and he could learn only by letter dated 27th of October, 2007 as - 3 - contained in Annexure-17 to the supplementary affidavit written by the State Bank of India to the Treasury Officer, Sheikhpura intimating to the effect that between the period December 2002 to March 2005 the amount of Rs. 31,261/- has been deducted from the pension of the petitioner. It is further submitted that on the one hand, respondent no.-6 has not passed any reasoned order as directed by this court as per order contained in Annexure-9 with regard to the recovery of the alleged excess amount and on the other hand, the amount continued to be deducted from his pension as would be appearing from the said letter as contained in Annexure- 17 in violation of the order of this court, the learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that no excess amount has been paid and his salary allowances etc. were correctly paid to him in terms of the pay fixation as per letter dated 03.5.91 as contained in Annexure-6. As such, the deduction of any amount is illegal and not justified. Mr. Shyam Kishore Sharma the learned Government Advocate No. 5 appearing on behalf of the State submits that the amount was deducted due to the excess payment made to the petitioner on account of salary and allowances and therefore, the chart showing the entitlement of the petitioner towards salary etc. was - 4 - indicated in the chart enclosed to the letter dated 06.02.1998 written by the Deputy Secretary, Minor Irrigation, Government of Bihar as contained in Annexure-12. However, notwithstanding the above the government has no objection in issuing the fresh letter to petitioner giving details of his entitlement towards salary for the material period and also the details of excess amount paid to him during the said period. Considering the submissions of the parties and upon perusal of the respective pleadings in my opinion, it would be just and proper that the respondent no.6 may issue fresh letter to the petitioner giving details of the entitlement of his salary etc. during the material period as well as indicating therein details of the excess payment alleged to have been paid to him, within a period of four weeks from today with a copy to Mr. Siyaram Shahi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. On receipt of such letter petitioner shall submit his reply within a period of three weeks. Respondent no.-6 on receipt of such reply if any, shall consider and dispose of the same by reasoned order dealing with each and every points raised by the petitioner in his reply preferably within a period of one month thereafter. In case upon such consideration it is found that no excess payment was made and no amount - 5 - was recoverable from the petitioner the amount deducted from the pension shall be refunded back to the petitioner within a period of six weeks thereafter. The writ application is disposed of with the above observations/directions. Let a copy of this order be given to learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Siyaram Shahi and Mr. Shyam Kishore Sharma, Govt. Advocate No. V for needful. Jagdish/- (Shailesh Kumar Sinha,J)