IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16368 of 2007 Awadh Kumar Tiwari, Son of Late Nawal Kishore Tiwari, at present residing at village – Kobeya, Police Station – Harsidhi, District – East Champaran ……………….. Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Secretary, Home (Police) Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Commandant General, Bihar Home Guards, Home Guards Headquarter, Chhajjubagh, Patna – 800001. 3. The Deputy Commandant General, Bihar Home Guards, Home Guards Headquarter, Chhajjubagh, Patna – 800001. 4. The Commandant, Bihar Home Guards, Home Guards Headquarter, Chhajjubagh, Patna – 800001. 5. The District Commandant, Bihar Home Guards, West Champaran (Bettiah). ……………. Respondents 2 16/8/2011 Heard Sri Gyanand Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ashok Kumar Keshri, learned Additional Advocate General No. 11, who appears on behalf of all the Respondents /State of Bihar. In the present writ petition the petitioner has made a limited prayer for quashing of an order contained in Memo No. 867 dated 23/11/2007 issued under the signature of District Commandant, Bihar Home Guards, District – West Champaran (Bettiah), whereby a direction was issued for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,15,394/- on the pretext of payment received by the petitioner in excess as salary and allowances during the period 1981 to March, 2007. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in similar circumstance recovery order was set aside by this court in a case filed by one Rabindra Nath Tiwary vide C.W.J.C. No. 13903 of 2003 on 30/03/2005. A photo copy of the same has been brought on record as ‘Annexure -8’ to the writ petition which was approved by a Division Bench of this court in L.P.A. No. 864 of 2005 (‘Annexure – 9’ to the writ petition). Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in similar circumstance recently a Bench of this court vide order dated 4/7/2011 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 1708 of 2009 has set aside the order of recovery. Sri Keshri, learned Additional Advocate General No. 11, does not dispute the fact that this court has set aside the order of recovery in similar situation. Learned counsel for the petitioner has produced a certified copy of order dated 4/7/2011 passed in C.W.J.C. 1708 of 2009. In view of the facts and circumstances particularly the fact that in similar situation this court has quashed recovery order, there is no option but to set aside the order dated 23/11/2007 (Annexure -1 to the writ petition ) whereby a direction was given to recover a sum of Rs. 1,15,394/-. Since the order of recovery has been set aside, the Respondents are directed to refund the recovered amount within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The writ petition stands allowed. Praful (Rakesh Kumar, J.)