Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1113 (JHR)

Madra Oraon v. State Of Jharkhand

2017-07-13

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2017
JUDGMENT Chandrashekhar, J. - Aggrieved of order dated 18.04.2012 whereby recovery of Rs. 1,77,000/- from his pension has been ordered, the petitioner has approached this Court. 2. The petitioner was appointed as a Teacher (Matricuntrained) in the year 1968 and he was granted Matric-trained scale in the year 1981. He claims that he was officiating as Headmaster of Gagendra State Middle School, Itki, and he superannuated from service on 31.08.2007. After his retirement when his final pension was not fixed rather, he was given provisional pension, he came to this Court in W.P.(S) No. 364 of 2011, which was disposed of by an order dated 09.05.2011 with liberty to the petitioner to approach the District Education Officer, who in compliance of this order, has passed order dated 18.04.2012. 3. Mr. Sunil Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that without issuing a show cause notice to the petitioner the order of recovery on the ground of alleged excess payment to the petitioner for 17 years cannot be ordered. 4. At the outset, it needs to be recorded that order dated 18.04.2012 has been passed after taking objection from the petitioner, who through his counsel submitted letter dated 28.06.2011 to the District Superintendent of Education, Ranchi. The petitioner, who was granted Matric-trained scale with effect from 01.04.1981, passed Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination in the year 2005, however, he continued to draw annual increments for long 17 years, after he became Headmaster. He himself was the Drawing and Disbursing Authority. It is not a case in which on account of a mistake committed by the respondents, petitioner was paid in excess to what he was entitled to. It is also a fact that the post of Headmaster is not a Class III post. It appears that immediately after an objection was raised on 01.09.2008 by the Accountant General, Jharkhand, petitioner''s service book was returned and now in compliance of order dated 09.05.2011 passed in W.P.(S) No. 364 of 2011 an order of recovery has been made. In the above facts, I do not find any substance in the plea taken by the petitioner that the order of recovery after his retirement and that too, without any show cause notice cannot be made. However, in view of superannuation of the petitioner from service, I am of the opinion that if recovery of Rs. In the above facts, I do not find any substance in the plea taken by the petitioner that the order of recovery after his retirement and that too, without any show cause notice cannot be made. However, in view of superannuation of the petitioner from service, I am of the opinion that if recovery of Rs. 1,77,000/- is affected through instalments spreads over a period of 3 years, it would mitigate hardship to the petitioner. 5. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 18.04.2012 is modified to the extent that recovery of Rs. 1,77,000/- shall be made in equal instalments over a period of 3 years. 6. The writ petition stands disposed of.