Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1519 (JHR)

Madhav Chandra Choudhary v. State of Jharkhand

2015-12-07

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2015
ORDER : In this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order as contained in Memo No. 660 dated 16.05.2006 passed by the respondent no. 4 whereby and whereunder respondent no. 4 has recovered an amount of Rs. 21,419/- from the salary of the petitioner and has again fixed the pay of the petitioner on the basis of a decision passed by the Finance Department, Bihar, Patna dated 16.11.2006. It has further been prayed that the recovered amount of Rs. 21,419/- be refunded back to the petitioner. 2. The petitioner was appointed as a Science Teacher on 14.10.1982 and posted in High School, Sarsa in the district of Deoghar. The petitioner was given promotion to senior scale after 12 years of service in terms of the decision of the Divisional Establishment Committee dated 12.09.1995. Pursuant to such promotion, the pay-scale of the petitioner was also revised which was approved by the respondent no. 3 vide his order dated 17.11.1995. After reorganization of the State, the Department of Finance, Bihar, Patna had taken a decision regarding revision of pay of the teachers who were working in the State of Bihar and which was issued by the resolution no. 7946 dated 16.11.2000. The said resolution was under scrutiny in C.W.J.C. No. 3984 of 2001 which was disposed of on 04.07.2001 by which it was held that the order contained in Memo No. 7946 dated 16.11.2000 by which a direction was issued to recover excess amount was set aside. The Jharkhand Rajya Madhyamik Shikshak Sangh has also challenged the resolution no. 7946 dated 16.11.2000 in W.P.S. No. 3923 of 2001 in which it was held that the respondents cannot give effect to the orders dated 16.11.2000 and 20.12.2000 issued by the Finance Department of State of Bihar, Patna to any of the members of the petitioner – Sangh. Subsequently, in course of audit it was detected that excess payment was made to the petitioner and thereafter letter dated 14.02.2006 was issued based on the audit report by which the petitioner was directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 21,419/- from the salary of the petitioner and which is under challenge in the present writ application. 3. Heard Mr. J. P. Jha, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jalisur Rahman, learned J.C. to G.P. III. 4. 21,419/- from the salary of the petitioner and which is under challenge in the present writ application. 3. Heard Mr. J. P. Jha, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jalisur Rahman, learned J.C. to G.P. III. 4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order as contained in Memo No. 660 dated 16.05.2006 is absolutely illegal and without jurisdiction. It has been submitted that the respondent no. 4 had never taken into consideration the order passed by this Court in W.P.S. No. 3923 of 2001 wherein it was clearly held that the order dated 16.11.2000 as contained in Memo No. 7946 cannot be given effect to the employees in the State of Jharkhand. 5. It has further been submitted that there has never been any misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner and the petitioner did not have any role to play in the wrong fixation of his pay-scale as such the petitioner cannot be held liable for such alleged wrong fixation. 6. Mr. Jalisur Rahman, learned J.C. to G.P. III has submitted that the petitioner had got promotion after 12 years of service in the senior scale vide letter dated 13.10.1995 with retrospective effect from 14.10.1994. It has further been submitted that the petitioner got the first time bound promotion by virtue of the letter dated 13.10.1995 and the petitioner got his pay fixation not on account of pay revision, but on account of the time bound promotion granted to him. It has further been submitted that pay fixation on promotion shall be governed by Rule 22 (c) of the fundamental rules which has been mentioned in letter no. 6022 F(2) dated 18.12.1999. Learned counsel has further submitted that during the audit, irregularities were detected with respect to wrong fixation of pay and the excess amount which was paid to the concerned teachers were ordered to be recovered by virtue of the impugned order. 7. It is not in dispute that the impugned order was issued pursuant to resolution no. 7946 dated 16.11.2000. The audit which was conducted based itself on findings of the said resolution wherein it was detected that the excess payment were made to the concerned teachers in the district of Godda and accordingly, the impugned order was issued. 7. It is not in dispute that the impugned order was issued pursuant to resolution no. 7946 dated 16.11.2000. The audit which was conducted based itself on findings of the said resolution wherein it was detected that the excess payment were made to the concerned teachers in the district of Godda and accordingly, the impugned order was issued. The resolution which forms the basis of recovery of excess amount has already been held to be not applicable in the State of Jharkhand as the same was issued by the State of Bihar after bifurcation and in the case of Jharkhand Rajya Madhyamik Shikshak Sangh (W.P.S. No. 3923 of 2001), it was held that if any amount has been recovered from the members of the Sangh, the same may be brought to the notice of the respective District Education Officers who will act in accordance with law. Even otherwise, it is not in dispute that the petitioner did not have any role to play in the wrong fixation of pay-scale. In absence of any fraud or misrepresentation at the behest of the employee such recovery may lead to a great deal of hardship to the petitioner. 8. Accordingly, in view of what has been discussed above, this writ application is allowed and the resolution no. 660 dated 16.05.2006 issued by the respondent no. 4 is hereby quashed. 9. It goes without saying that if any amount has been recovered pursuant to the resolution dated 16.05.2006, the same shall be refunded back to the petitioner within a period of 3 weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.