IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1084 of 2002 RAMCHANDRA PRASAD THAKUR, S/O LATE NAWLAL THAKUR, R/O VILLAGE-PATAR, P.S.-SAHARGHAT, DISTRICT- MADHUBANI. …………………PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE SECRETARY, PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE DIRECTOR, PRIMARY EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 5. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, MADHUBANI. 6. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, BIHAR, PATNA. 7. THE SENIOR ACCOUNTS OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A & E), BIHAR, PATNA. 8. THE HEAD MASTER, GOVT. MIDDLE SCHOOL, SAHAR, MADHUBANI. ……………………RESPONDENTS. FOR THE PETITIONER : MR. AJAY KUMAR, ADV. FOR THE STATE : MR. PRABHAT KUMAR, ADV., AC TO GA-III AND MR. J.P. KARN, ADV. FOR THE A.G. : MR. L.P.K. RAJGRIHAR, ADV. ----------- 3 05.08.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the Accountant General. The petitioner has challenged a communication of the office of the Accountant General to the District Superintendent of Education, Madhubani as contained in Annexure-2 by which the District Superintendent of Education, Madhubani has been informed that on account of wrong fixation of pay at some stage, the petitioner has drawn excess salary and same should be recovered from him. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the salary of the petitioner was fixed by the - 2 - authorities of the State without any misrepresentation or fraud on his part. Therefore, no recovery of the alleged amount excess paid to him can be ordered from his pensionary benefits since the petitioner has superannuated long back. For this submission, learned counsel for the petitioner relies on a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Syed Abdul Qadir and others Vs. State of Bihar and others reported in 2009 (2) PLJR 74 (SC). After going through the said judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court finds the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner as correct and fully supported by the ratio of the judgment laid down in paragraph 27 thereof. There is nothing in the counter affidavit to show that either the petitioner had knowledge of the wrong fixation or the same had been fixed on account of misrepresentation or fraud on his part. Learned counsel for the State also does not assert so in his arguments. Learned counsel for the Accountant General submits that the petitioner was given wrong pay scale by the State authorities on account of wrong interpretation of the Government Circulars and letters which have been detected by the Accountant - 3 - General while issuing the final pension payment order of the petitioner and, therefore, the authorities were directed to rectify the same. This submission itself goes in favour of the petitioner. In the circumstances, following the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above judgment the part of Annexure-2 by which the authorities of the State have been directed to recover the excess amount paid to the petitioner from his pensionary benefits is quashed. Any recovery made from the pensionary benefits of the petitioner on account of Annexure-2 shall be refunded to him within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not challenge the anomaly pointed out by the Accountant General office in the matter of grant of wrong pay scale. In the result, this writ application is allowed in part with above observations and directions. Arvind/ (J. N. Singh, J.)