Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 34 (JHR)

Rajnath Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2011-01-17

N.N.TIWARI

body2011
Order When this case is called out for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents, during the pendency of the writ petition, have given the benefits of ACP, but they have not fixed the petitioner's pay scale properly. The petitioner has been also subjected to purported recovery of the amount, which was allegedly given to the petitioner due to wrong fixation of pay of the petitioner during his service tenure. It is admitted case that the petitioner has retired from the services of the respondents on 31st January, 2004 after attaining the age of superannuation. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the recovery dated 20th August, 2007 (Annexure-4), whereby the Executive Engineer, National Savings, under whom the petitioner had worked, was directed to recover the excess amount, allegedly paid to the petitioner on the basis of wrong fixation of the petitioner's pay scale with effect from the earlier date. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents, supporting the said order. It has been stated that the petitioner was entitled to be promoted to the selection grade with effect from 20th March, 1983, but he was wrongly given promotion and its benefit with effect from 20th March, 1978. Similarly, he was given promotion in super selection grade, though he was not entitled. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order of promotion was issued by the competent authority of the department and there was no misrepresentation by the petitioner in getting the said promotion. It has been submitted that after giving promotion and its benefit by the competent authority, without any misrepresentation of the petitioner, the respondents cannot recover any amount on the pretext of wrong fixation and that too after retirement of the petitioner from service. Learned counsel submitted that the Full Bench of this Court in the case of State of Jharkhand & Ors. vs. Padmalochan Kalindi & Anr. [ 2008(1) JCR 5 (Jhr.)] [: 2007(4) JLJR 451 (FB)] has held that any recovery on the ground that the petitioner was wrongly given the increments or the benefits long after his retirement, cannot be permitted except by an order passed under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar/Jharkhand Pension Rules. vs. Padmalochan Kalindi & Anr. [ 2008(1) JCR 5 (Jhr.)] [: 2007(4) JLJR 451 (FB)] has held that any recovery on the ground that the petitioner was wrongly given the increments or the benefits long after his retirement, cannot be permitted except by an order passed under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar/Jharkhand Pension Rules. Learned counsel submitted that no order has been passed under Rule 43(b) of the said Pension Rules and as such any recovery in the name of wrong payment is wholly illegal and unjustified. Learned counsel submitted that the respondents, being in dominating position, have been able to illegally realise a sum of Rs.65,351/- from the petitioner after his retirement on 3rd October, 2007. 5. Learned J.C. to G.P.-II has admitted the said position of law, enunciated by the Full Bench of this Court, and could not be able to defend the impugned order, directing recovery from the petitioner in the name of excess payment during his service period. 6. Since this case is. squarely covered by the said decision of the Full Bench of this Court in State of Jharkhand & Ors. vs. Padmalochan Kalindi & Anr. (supra), it is held that the order of recovery from the petitioner in the name of excess payment on account of wrong fixation is not sustainable. The impugned Letter No.514 dated 20th August, 2007 (Annexure-4) is, hereby, quashed. Any amount recovered from the petitioner in the meanwhile, on the said ground, shall be refunded to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 7. If the petitioner is aggrieved by his wrong fixation, he is at liberty to bring the same to the notice of the concerned authorities by way of filing representation. If such representation is filed by him, the same shall be disposed of within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the representation. This writ petition is allowed in the above terms.