NAWAL KISHORE PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Rabindra Prasad Singh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner; Mr. Prem Ranjan Raj, learned A.C. to S.C.-7 appearing on behalf of the State and Mr. Arun Kumar Arun, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Accountant General.

(2.) Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner informs this Court that all the retiral dues have been paid to the petitioner and same fact has been recorded by this Court in the order dtd. 5/11/2014 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 11298 of 2011, however, the writ court had passed order in absence of the Counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner had preferred Letter Patent Appeal No. 272 of 2015 against the order dtd. 5/11/2014 which was dismissed as the aspect of the recovery was not an issue before the Writ Court and in appeal the petitioner cannot make such challenge. Learned Counsel further submitted that in view of the order dtd. 28/6/2017 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 272 of 2015, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition against the order of recovery of Rs.5,09,915.00. Such recovery is illegal and in support of his contention he has referred to Page 6, sub-paragraph 4 of the paragraph No.7 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 in which a statement has been made to recover an amount of Rs.3,40,719.00 on account of shortage of books in addition to that Rs.35,627.00, Rs.20,132.00 and Rs.6086.00 on account of production centre, students development fund and furniture's respectively and on account of other dues Rs.1,79,862.00 have been realized from the petitioner out of entitlement of leave encashment amount which has been recovered in compliance of communication made by the Principal, Government Polytechnic College, Bhagalpur vide letter No. 227 dtd. 18/4/2018. Learned Counsel submitted that law is well settled that without initiating any proceeding within the period prescribed under the statute the authorities cannot recover any amount from a retired employee, who has died much after long period of 8 years from the date of his retirement that is on 31/5/2010.

(3.) Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 informs this Court that the specific statement has been made in counter affidavit in sub-paragraph No. 4 of paragraph No.7 that it is not a case that the petitioner was not aware of the amount which were required to be deposited by him on different heads particularly, on the head of shortage of books amounting to Rs.3,40,719.00 and 1,79,862/- on account of other dues out of which the petitioner having admitted that he has paid only Rs.15,2018.00 and as such it is not a case that the petitioner was not informed and heard and without giving any opportunity such recovery has been made from the petitioner.