IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2612 of 2002 Kashinath Tripathi, son of Pandit Baidyanath Tripathi, Assistant Teacher, Sahu Jain High School, Lauriya, West Champaran, resident of village and post Bhitaha Nezamat, P.S. Bettiah, District- West Champaran …………… Petitioner Versus 1.The State Of Bihar 2.The Commissioner and Secretary, Department of Human Resources, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 3.The Director, Secondary Education, Department of Human Resources, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 4.The District Education Officer, West Champaran 5.The Headmaster, Sahu Jain High School, Lauriya, District- West Champaran …………. Respondents. ----------- 6. 23/04/2010 In view of the pleadings made in the counter affidavit, this much is admitted that the petitioner was granted selection grade pay scale by the respondents with effect from 1.2.1989 vide Annexure-2 dated 24.3.1994. Annexure-3, pay slip of the petitioner, shows that his selection grade scale was approved by the Special Director, Secondary Education on 30.6.2000. However, an order of the District Education Officer was issued vide memo no.1065 dated 31.12.2001, as contained in Annexure-4, by which grant of said selection grade scale stands cancelled in the light of some letter of the Director contained in memo no.311 dated 6.5.1991. This order of the District Education Officer is under challenge in this writ - 2 - application. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had no knowledge of the said order of the Director, as contained in memo no.311 dated 6.5.1991. He also submits that no show cause was issued to the petitioner or the said memo was made available to him to meet objections of the respondents in respect of grant of said selection grade scale. He also submits that the selection grade scale was granted to the petitioner much after the said letter of the Director and the same was approved by the Special Director also. In the circumstances, it was not open to the respondents to cancel the selection grade scale granted to the petitioner on a letter issued by the Director ten years back. There is no denial to this submission of learned counsel for the petitioner in the counter affidavit. When the case was taken up on 28.2.2002, respondents were directed to file counter affidavit and the recovery of any amount paid to the petitioner in terms of impugned Annexure-4 was stayed. It has been - 3 - stated in the counter affidavit that pursuant to the impugned order, only Rs.5000/- has been recovered from the petitioner so far. There is no denial in the counter affidavit that no show cause was issued to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. There is also no pleading in the counter affidavit to dispute the validity or correctness of grant of selection grade scale to the petitioner and its approval by the Special Director. In the circumstances, this Court finds the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner as correct. The writ application is accordingly allowed, impugned order, as contained in Annexure-4 is quashed and the respondents are directed to refund the deducted amount of Rs.5000/- to the petitioner within one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Pradeep/ ( J.N. Singh, J.)