Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 352 (PAT)

Shyam Chandra Singh v. State Of Bihar

2008-02-18

J.N.SINGH

body2008
Judgment J.N.Singh, J. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the State as well as learned Counsel for the Accountant General. 2. It appears that the petitioners pension papers were forwarded to the Accountant General for fixation of his pension. The Accountant General found some discrepancies in fixation of his pay in revised scale and therefore returned the papers to the Director, Primary Education, vide Annexure-3 pointing out the discrepancies, for taking appropriate action in the matter. Thereafter, it appears that the respondent Director examined the matter and directed the respondent, District Superintendent of Education, Sitamarhi for recovery of excess payment made to the petitioner without seeking any clarification. Consequently respondent D.S. 3. found 12% benefit on the pay drawn by the petitioner on higher pay scale as wrong and, thereafter, order of recovery was made from the pay of the petitioner. Pursuent to the said order recovery of a sum of Rs. 17,723/- was made. 3. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent No. 4 in which it has been stated that 12% benefit of Selection Grade of the petitioner ought to have been fixed on the pay scale of Rs. 230-340 whereas it was wrongly fixed at Rs. 240-396, therefore, excess payment of Rs. 17723/- was made to the petitioner on account of the same. 4. However, from the counter affidavit it appears that before coming to the conclusion that 12% benefit of Selection Grade was given to the petitioner on a wrong pay scale, he was not given any opportunity to explain the matter and file representation defending the said fixation. In the circumstance it is apparent that the order for recovery of excess payment on account of wrong fixation of pay was passed against the petitioner without giving him any opportunity of being heard in the matter. 5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the fixation of pay after giving 12% benefit of Selection Grade in the pay scale of Rs. 240-396 was rightly done and the amount was not recoverable from the petitioner. From Annexure-6 it appears that the petitioner filed representation before the respondent Director disputing the calculation made by the Accountant General and claimed that he was rightly given 12% benefit of Selection Grade on the pay scale of Rs. 240-396. 240-396 was rightly done and the amount was not recoverable from the petitioner. From Annexure-6 it appears that the petitioner filed representation before the respondent Director disputing the calculation made by the Accountant General and claimed that he was rightly given 12% benefit of Selection Grade on the pay scale of Rs. 240-396. It is submitted that the said representation has not been considered by the respondent Director. 6. In the circumstances since the representation was filed in the year, 2000, liberty is granted to the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the respondent Director in which he may claim that the grant of 12% benefit of selection grade was rightly given on the pay scale of Rs. 240-396. Petitioner will be at liberty to place before the respondent Director the relevant circular/orders of the Government for consideration in the matter. The Director, if thinks necessary, shall give a personal hearing to the petitioner and thereafter consider the matter and pass appropriate order afresh. It goes without saying that if the Director finds that the grant of 12% benefit has been rightly given to the petitioner on the pay scale, he shall order for refund of the said amount to the petitioner. If petitioner files such representation within one month from today it is expected that the Director shall consider the same and pass a reasoned order within two months thereafter. 7. With the above observations and directions this writ application is disposed of.