Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1579 (PAT)

Thakur Rameshwar Singh v. State of Bihar

2012-11-26

NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH

body2012
ORDER 1. Mr. Tej Bahadur Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the present case is squarely covered by decision of this Court in the case of Surendra Pratap Singh versus State of Bihar and others and analogous cases being C.W.J.C. No.11382 of 2010 which was heard and disposed of on 21.11.2011 by a learned Judge of this Court. Sri Singh, learned Senior Counsel submits that petitioners’ case is also similar and in relation to the same service. Learned counsel for the State does not dispute this position that the order of the learned Single Judge, as noticed above, has attained finality. 2. It appears that the petitioners were appointed as Agriculture Inspectors under the Subordinate Agriculture Service in which service they were holding the post of Inspectors. The said post was upgraded. In 1989, the upgraded post was merged with the Bihar Agriculture Service Grade-II, which was then cancelled on 08.02.1991. This decision of de-merger was not interfered by a Division Bench of this Court in the judgment dated 21.05.2008 which has since been reported as Bihar Agriculture Graduate Service Association and others versus the State of Bihar and others since reported in 2008 (3) PLJR 219 . It also appears that because of pendency of the writ petition petitioners had continued to receive the higher remuneration. Petitioners had superannuated in between 1999-2003 and, i.e., much prior to the judgment in question. Their pensions were accordingly fixed and are being paid. The question is whether State is entitled to now recover the excess payment made to the petitioners which as noticed above all superannuated almost 10 years back. 3. This aspect of the matter was also considered in detail by the learned Single Judge in the aforesaid case. Thereafter, their Lordships have held that all payments that were made up to the date of judgment of the Division Bench, i.e., 21.05.2008 would not be recovered. Thereafter, the pension would be appropriately re-fixed and the excess payment made with effect from 01.06.2008 could be recovered. It was also pointed out that petitioners being pensioners the recovery should be made in an equitable manner and distributed even over a period. 4. Thereafter, the pension would be appropriately re-fixed and the excess payment made with effect from 01.06.2008 could be recovered. It was also pointed out that petitioners being pensioners the recovery should be made in an equitable manner and distributed even over a period. 4. Learned counsel for the State states that pursuant to the aforesaid judgment of the learned Single Judge in the case of Surendra Pratap Singh’s case (Supra) state has already passed orders in relation to those persons recently and he has no objection if similar orders be authorized to be passed by the State in this regard. While doing so, learned counsel for the State has relied on a judgment in the case of Chandi Prasad Uniyal and others versus State of Uttarakhand and others since reported in (2012) 8 Supreme Court Cases 417 for the proposition that in the case there has been illegal or regular excess payment then recovery cannot be stopped as that would amount unjust enrichment. 5. Mr. Tej Bahadur Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners rightly submits that in the said judgment itself it has been noticed that this is not a general rule. It is special to exceptions as have been enumerated in the case of Syed Abdul Qadir versus the State of Bihar since reported in (2009) 3 Supreme Court Cases 475 and in the case of Col. B.J. Akkara versus Government of India and others since reported in (2006) 11 Supreme Court Cases 709. This finding of the Apex Court is to be noticed in paragraph-15 of the judgment itself. 6. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the petitioners have superannuated almost 10 years back. Therefore, their cases would fall under the exceptions as noticed in Syed Abdul Qadir’s case (supra) and as also in view of the judgment of the learned Single Judge in the case of Surendra Pratap Singh’s case (supra) wherein a cut off date itself has been fixed, being 21.05.2008, which is a case similar on fact in relation to the same service and in relation to the same dispute. In my view, that judgment has to be followed and, accordingly, orders have to be passed. 7. In my view, that judgment has to be followed and, accordingly, orders have to be passed. 7. Having considered the matter, I, therefore, direct that so far as payments up to 21.05.2008 is concerned, when Division Bench judgment was rendered in the matter payments made thereafter have to be recalculated by re-fixing of the pension with effect from 01.06.2008 . Recoveries have to be made in the same manner as payments were made. This is consistent with the order of the State Government as passed in the case of Surendra Pratap Singh’s case (supra) on 01.06.2012 by the Director of Agriculture. 8. With these observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.