STATE OF BIHAR Vs. DAROGA PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State of Bihar and its functionaries are the petitioners herein, were respondents in C.W.J.C. No. 8069 of 1997 (Daroga Prasad v. State of Bihar and others ), and have preferred this application for review of the order dated 28 -7 -1999 (Annexure -1), passed in the writ petition, whereby the order dated 10 -8 -1998 (Annexure -16 to the writ petition), along with the order dated 25 -9 -1998 (Annexure -19 to the writ petition] were quashed. The High Court in effect had set aside the order of the Accountant -General deducting from the post -retirement benefits of the writ petitioner the excess salary paid to him while in service.

(2.) The writ petitioner was in the service of the Bihar Government, was working as a Borer and was drawing the pay -scale of Rs. 825 -1,200. He claimed entitlement to the pay -scale of Rs. 975 -1,540, which was denied by the State Government. He along with two other persons had preferred C.W.J.C. No. 6631 of 1991 (Ramashray Singh and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors.), inter alia, for a direction to the State Government to pay to them the pay -scale of Rs. 975 -1,540 The writ petitioner was petitioner No. 3 in that writ petition. The same was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court by judgment dated 14 -11 -1995 (Annexure -6), inter alia, on the ground that the pay -scale of Rs. 975 -1,540 was given to Tube -well Borers which entailed high responsibilities and was, therefore, inadmissible to the petitioners of that writ petition. It was held that they were entitled to the pay -scale admissible to Borers, i.e. Rs. 825 -1,200. The writ petitioner superannuated from the services of the Bihar Government w.e.f. 28 -2 -1994. Thereafter, for reasons not clear in the present proceedings, letter dated 15 -1 -1998 was issued by the authorities showing entitlement of the writ petitioner to the pay -scale of Rs. 975 -1,540. By the consequential order, he was granted the differential of salary. It appears from the pleadings of the parties that it was pointed out in the audit in the office of the Accountant General that the petitioner had drawn the differential of salary unauthorisedly. Therefore, the Accountant General issued the aforesaid letter dated 10 -8 -1998 (Annexure -16 to C.W.J.C. No. 8069/97), directing recovery of arrears. The functionaries of the State Government passed the aforesaid consequential order dated 25 -9 -1998 (Annexure -19 to C.W.J.C. No. 8069/97), informing the writ petitioner of the mode and manner of recovery of the same from the post -retirement benefits of the petitioner. The writ petitioner challenged these two orders in the said C.W.J,C. No. 8069 of 1997 which was allowed by order dated 28 -7 -1999 (Annexure -1) on two grounds, namely, once the pay -scale of the petitioner had been fixed, there was no justification for the authorities to recover the same. It was allowed on the further ground that the writ petitioner had superannuated from the service of the Bihar Government w.e.f. 28 -2 -1994 and, therefore, the same should not have been recovered at that stage, much less without giving due opportunity to him. In that view of the matter, both the aforesaid orders dated 10 -8 -1998 and the consequential order dated 25 -9 -1998 were quashed. The net result of the order of the High Court was that the respondent -authorities were precluded from recovering the excess salary paid to the writ petitioner.

(3.) It appears that after the said order dated 28 -7 -1999 of this Court was received in the department concerned, they realised that the writ petitioner had obtained the same by suppressing the Act that the question of petitioner's entitlement to the pay -scale of Rs. 975 -1,540, really admissible to Tube -well Borers, had been rejected by this Court by the aforesaid judgment dated 14 -11 -1995, passed in C.W.J.C. No. 6631 of 1991. The State Government, therefore, preferred L.P.A. No. 1063 of 1999 (State of Bihar v. Daroga Prasad and Ors.), which was disposed of by order dated 17 -9 -1999 (Annexure -9), whereby the State Government was permitted to withdraw the appeal with the liberty to file a review petition before the learned Single Judge. Hence the present review petition at the instance of the State of Bihar and its functionaries.