SHAMBHU SHARAN Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed seeking the following relief:-

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed on 21/3/1979 in the Minor Irrigation Department and he superannuated on 31/1/2012 from the office of the Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Department, Nalanda, while working as Correspondence Clerk. He was granted benefit of 1st and 2nd ACP by the Respondent No. 4, vide letter dtd. 20/8/2011, with effect from 9/8/1999 and 2/9/2007 respectively. The petitioner was then granted benefit of 3rd ACP / MACP, vide letter dtd. 21/5/2015, with effect from 29/8/2011. It is also stated that the fixation of pay of the petitioner was carried out, after proper verification from the Accounts Office, Nalanda and the same was granted from the date of passing of the Accounts Examination i.e. with effect from 17/1/2010, vide letter dtd. 28/9/2011. Now, after superannuation of the petitioner on 31/1/2012, after fixation of the pension of the petitioner, the Respondent No. 4 has issued an office order dtd. 7/8/2021, whereby and whereunder the earlier orders, granting the benefits of 1st ACP / 2nd ACP and 3rd MACP, have been withdrawn and it has been directed to recover the excess amount, paid to the petitioner, which is impermissible in law, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab & Others vs. Rafiq Masih & Others, reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334.

(3.) Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent-State has referred to the counter affidavit, filed in the present case, to submit that passing of departmental accounts examination is a pre-requisite for grant of the benefits of ACP / MACP Scheme and since the petitioner had passed departmental accounts examination finally on 17/1/2010, he is entitled to get the benefits of MACP with effect from the said date and not from a date prior to the same, as such, the earlier orders, granting petitioner the benefits of ACP / MACP, have been reviewed and recovery has been sought to be made qua the excess amount of salary paid to the petitioner.