IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5928 of 2009 NAGENDRA NATH MISHRA son of Rama Nand Mishra, resident of village Koreyan, P.S.Bheldi, District- Saran, presently residing at C/o Bansidhar Mishra, New Pulendarpur near Jakkanpur, P.S Jakkanpur, District- Patna. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. The Engineer-in-Chief-cum- Additional Commissioner- cum- Special Secretary,Rural Engineering Organization, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Superintending Engineer, Rural Engineering Organization, Sasaram. 4. The Executive Engineer, Rural Engineering Organization, Sasaram. 5. The District Certificate Officer, Rohtas at Sasaram. ----------- 2 12.5.2009. Petitioner had superannuated on 30.9.1995 from the post of Junior Engineer in the Rural Engineering Department. When his retiral dues were not being paid, he filed a writ petition before this Court being CWJC No. 1829 of 1998, which was disposed of on 5.11.1999 (Annexure 1). The only dispute is with regard to payment of retiral dues related to a deduction for eight months, which the petitioner had worked after his due date of superannuation. State did not raise any other dispute. While disposing of the said writ petition, this Court held that such recovery was impermissible and the petitioner was liable to be paid the entire due without those deduction. Accordingly the writ petition was allowed and as the petitioner’s retiral due had been unjustifiably withheld, interest was also directed to be paid. Once these proceedings stood terminated by Annexure 2, the Chief Engineer –cum- Special Secretary ,referring to the said judgment in the writ petition, directed recovery of Rs. 1,02,815/- from the petitioner for alleged certain financial dereliction committed by the petitioner in the 2 year 1990. This direction was issued on 9.11.1999. In the said direction it was also noticed that at this distant time resort to Rule 43B of the Pension Rules cannot be made and as such the amount should be recovered in a certificate proceeding straightway. It is not in dispute that no departmental proceeding, at any point of time, either before the petitioner’s superannuation or after the petitioner’s superannuation was ever initiated for adjudication as to the liability of the petitioner to account for or pay the said amount of Rs. 1,02,815/-. It may also be noted here that while the writ petition of the petitioner was pending, no such claim was made by the State as against the writ petitioner. The writ petition was allowed on 5.11.1999 and this claim is being raised on 9.11.1999 referring to the writ petition itself and an order dated 1.11.1999 passed therein. The order dated 1.11.1999 in the writ petition is also part of Annexure 1. It does not say anything but adjourned and fixed the matter for hearing in admission to 5th of November, 1999. Apparently, a deliberate attempt has been made by the State to refer to an order of the High Court for justifying the recovery ,which is absolutely false. Both orders dated 1.11.1999 and 5.11.1999 are on records and speak nothing for recovery rather to the contrary they are strange recovery action by the State. In that view of the matter I have left with no option but to hold that the direction to recover the amount was wholly without jurisdiction and could not have been done. That being so, the initiation of certificate proceeding being Auction Case no. 5/1999-2000 pending before the District Certificate Officer, Rohtas (Sasaram) was wholly 3 without jurisdiction. There was an inherent lack of jurisdiction in the matter and as such the certificate proceeding cannot be permitted to continue and is quashed accordingly. The writ petition stands allowed. SINGH (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)