IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16054 of 2010 1. MD. SHAFIQUE S/O LAT SK. NAIN HUSSAIN R/O VILL.- SHRIPUR BAZAR, P.S.- SUGAULI, DISTT.- EAST CHAMPARAN Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE SECRETARY GOVT. OF BIHAR, DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY EDUCATION 3. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION EAST CHAMPARAN AT MOTIHARI 4. AREA EDUCATION OFFICER, RAXAUL, EAST CHAMPARAN 5. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, BIHAR, PATNA ----------- 2. 04.05.2011 Heard the parties. Annexure-2 is the communication made by the Accountant General Bihar to the Deputy Superintendent of Education, Motihari, East Champaran. Petitioner superannuated on 31.10.2008 as an Assistant Teacher and a direction has been issued to refix the salary of the petitioner as well as effect recovery in the light of the objection of the Accountant General that salary of the petitioner was wrongly fixed with effect from 1.1.1996. The wrong fixation has been reflected in the said letter which was discovered when the service book was forwarded to the Accountant General. The objection of the Accountant General cannot be faulted to the extent that an employee is entitled to the pay scale which has been authorized by 2 the State and if a wrong fixation has been done due to some misunderstanding or wrong understanding by the concerned authority with effect from 1.1.1996 based on the recommendation of the 6th pay commission. But then there is no evidence to show that this was done at the behest of the petitioner or some mischief or fraud played by him. The law is well settled in the case of Ram Binod Singh & Ors. Vs. The Bihar State Electricity Board & Ors. 2007 (3) P.L.J.R. 398. That no recovery can be made in above circumstance especially when the petitioner has not been issued any notice or show cause, moreso, when he retired more than two years ago. To that extent the order of recovery or direction for recovery contained in Anneuxre-2 is quashed the respondent however are free to refix the pay scale of the petitioner according to his entitlement as has been indicated in Annexure-2. It is, however, made clear that if before re-fixing the pay scale of the petitioner in terms of Annexure-2 petitioner would be given an opportunity to demonstrate that the earlier fixation was accordance with law. This application is disposed of. Anand Kr. (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)