Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1053 (JHR)

Arjun Prasad Yadav v. State Of Jharkhand

2003-08-26

SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA

body2003
ORDER S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. This application has been preferred by petitioner against the order issued by the Accountant General (A and E) II, Bihar, Patna as contained in letter No. Pen 811-4502 dated 17th May, 2001, whereby and where under the pension of petitioner has been fixed at a lower stage of Rs. 8,650/- instead of Rs. 9,000/- which was the last pay drawn by him; the consequential order issued by the commandant, Home Guard, Bihar, Patna is also under challenge. The authority rejected the claim of petitioner and held that the pension fixed by the Accountant General, at Rs. 8,650/-is correct and the pension and gratuity has been correctly fixed by the Accountant General, Bihar, Patna. 2. It appears that the petitioner moved before this Court for proper fixation of pension and gratuity in WP (S) No. 5206/2001. In the said case a counter- affidavit was filed on behalf of the Accountant General, Bihar and Jharkhand with the stand that last pay of the petitioner was shown as Rs. 8,650/- but the provisional pension was wrongly fixed on the basis of Rs, 9,000/-. For the said reason a sum of Rs. 65130.26 paise was paid to petitioner in excess which has been ordered to be recovered from pension. The case was remitted to respondents vide order dated 23rd April, 2002 to decide the matter. 3. The counsel for the petitioner relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court of India in the case of "Sahib Ram v. The State of Haryana and Ors.," reported in 1995 (Supp) (1) SCC page 18. It was submitted that even if any, amount paid in excess the respondents cannot deduct such amount from pension as there was no misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner. 4. In the present case, the respondents have not disputed the fact that the petitioner drawn Rs. 9,000/- per month as the last pay. The only plea taken by respondents is that the petitioner wrongly withdrawn the excess amount. 5. The Commandant, Home Guard (Hq). Bihar, Patna was directed to appear and to present the original record to suggest that the petitioner wrongly fixed his pay. Mr. D.N. Gupta, the Commandant, Home Guard (Hq) Bihar, Patna appeared but failed to produce any such record inspite of number of adjournment given to trace out the record from Dumka to suggest that the petitioner misrepresented and got the benefit. Mr. D.N. Gupta, the Commandant, Home Guard (Hq) Bihar, Patna appeared but failed to produce any such record inspite of number of adjournment given to trace out the record from Dumka to suggest that the petitioner misrepresented and got the benefit. , It is accepted that there is no record in support of stand taken by respondents. 6. In the circumstances, there being nothing on the record to suggest that the petitioner misrepresented the respondents to get the pay fixed at a higher stage, the respondents are directed not to recover any amount from the retirement benefit of petitioner. They will fix the pension and gratuity of petitioner as per Rule i.e., on the basis of last pay drawn by him and pay the pension and gratuity within three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 7. The letter dated 17th May, 2001 (Annexure-1) issued by the Accountant General, Bihar, Patna and the letter of Commandant, Home Guard, Bihar, Patna dated 24th May, 2002 are also set aside. 8. The writ petition is allowed with aforesaid observations and directions. However, there shall be no order as to costs.