Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 347 (PAT)

Yogendra Mahto v. State Of Bihar

2006-04-20

NARAYAN ROY

body2006
Judgment 1. Heard Mr. MP. Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner and J.C. to G.P. 11 for the respondents. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by order as contained in Annexure 1 issued vide letter no. 1987 dated 3.11.1998 whereby and whereunder necessary directions have been given to recover excess salary paid to the petitioner in one lumpsum on account of wrong fixation of his salary. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher with effect from 1.2.1974 and the school in question was recognized by the State Government with effect from 5.7.1978 and his services were acknowledged. The petitioner thereafter was sent for training and after completion of training his scale was fixed by the District Education Officer, Samastipur in 1982 in the scale of Rs. 850-1360 and the scale accordingly was paid to him. It is also submitted by learned counsel that the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Darbhanga Division also recognized the services of the petitioner in the trained scale with effect from 10.5.1982 vide Annexure 9 and in these view of the matter, it will not be appropriate to say that the excess payment was made to the petitioner and that should be recovered. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents stating therein that the trained scale granted by the District Education Officer was not in accordance with law as the petitioner was not fulfilling eligibility criterian. It is also submitted by learned counsel that minimum eligibility for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher in such schools was trained graduate and since the petitioner was not trained, his appointment itself was void ab initio. It is also submitted by learned counsel that on the basis of audit report certain discrepancies were found in grant of trained scale to the petitioner after giving him 12% of promotional benefit and, therefore, the order impugned as contained in Annexure 1 cannot be said to be without jurisdiction. 5. From Annexure 1, it is manifest that firstly a report was called for from the Headmaster of the school about the eligibility of the petitioner and at the same time direction was also issued to recover the excess amount paid to him. 6. 5. From Annexure 1, it is manifest that firstly a report was called for from the Headmaster of the school about the eligibility of the petitioner and at the same time direction was also issued to recover the excess amount paid to him. 6. Since the authorities wanted a report from the Headmaster of the school, the recovery part could have awaited but simultaneously both the directions were issued. 7. From the materials on record it appears that after 1978 when the school was recognized the petitioner was sent for training and thereafter his scale was fixed by the District Education Officer which was subsequently approved by the Regional Deputy Director of Education in 1994. 8. The facts as stated above, therefore, leave no scope to this court to hold the petitioner as an untrained teacher and not eligible for the post. 9. This writ application was filed in 2000 and this court vide order dated 30.3.2006 wanted to know about the status of the petitioner and about the factum of recovery of the excess amount paid to him. Mr. Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, however, is not in a position to inform this court as to whether recoveries have been made from the petitioner till date. 10. In view of the submissions of the counsel, in my opinion the matter requires fresh consideration by respondent no. 3 the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Darbhanga Division. Respondent No. 3 accordingly is directed to examine the case of the petitioner afresh after due notice to the parties and thereafter he shall take a decision in the matter in accordance with law as to whether recovery could have been made from the petitioner as stated in Annexure 1. This exercise, however, must be completed by the respondent no. 3 within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Till an appropriate decision is taken by the respondent no. 3, there will be no recovery from the petitioner, if recovery not already effected. 11. With the aforesaid observation/direction, this application is disposed of.