SATYENDRA SINGH Vs. ACCOUNTANT GENERAL BIHAR PATNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed this application for quashing the order of recovery issued by respondent No. 5, Executive Engineer, P.W.D. Road Construction Department, Ranchi. The petitioner has retired from service on 31.5.2000. He was being paid his provisional pension, gratuity, and leave encashment. Subsequently, the Accountant General, Bihar, issued a direction to recover the excess amount paid to the petitioner from his pensionary benefits. Prayer of the petitioner is also for fixation of pension in the revised scale. Petitioners salary alongwith other Electrician grade II of the P.W.D, was fixed in the revised scale with effect from 1.3.1986. After petitioners retirement from service, Accountant General Bihar raised objection that wrongly revised scale was given to the petitioner alongwith electricians of Irrigation Department for which he is not entitled. The Department did not agree with the order passed by the Accountant General. Even then the Accountant General has fixed the pension of the petitioner in the lower scale and also directed for recovery of the amount from the pensionary benefits of the petitioner. On the basis of the direction of the Accountant General the recovery order has been issued by the department.

(2.) A counter -affidavit has been filed by the Accountant General stating that benefits of pay anomaly of higher pay scale (Rs. 680 -Rs. 985) had been wrongly fixed from 1.3.1986 which was not admissible in the case of the petitioner, as such, pension case of the petitioner was returned to the department concerned seeking clarification and adjustment of over payment.

(3.) IN reply to the counter -affidavit the petitioner has stated that the Accountant General has authorised the payment of pension and gratuity as well as commutation of pension in the lower scale and has also directed recovery of the amount ignoring all legal and admissible rules and laws. The Accountant General has ignored the rules provided in the Bihar Service Code. If two employees are working on the same post in two different departments of the State, they will have to be given the same scale of pay considering the principle of equal pay for equal work. It has also completely been overlooked by the Accountant General that initially Irrigation was the parent department which was subsequently bifurcated in lrrigation and Public Works Department. Services of electricians working in parent department i.e. Irrigation Department were transferred to the Public Works Department. The electricians working in the lrrigation Department as well as Public Works Department are on the same posts, discharging same responsibilities and the nature of their working is also same. ln the circumstances, there may not be disparity in the pay scale.