GAURI SHANKAR SINGH, SON OF LATE GARIBA SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Amit Shrivastava along with Mr. Sanjeev Nikesh, learned counsel for the petitioner; learned counsel for the Accountant General and learned A.C. to G.A. 12 for the State.

(2.) The petitioner has moved the Court for the following reliefs:

(3.) At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he would be restricting his prayer to interference by the Court to the order of recovery intended to be made from his pensionary benefits on account of wrong grant of increments to him while in service. He further prays that as he has superannuated on 31.10.2015, and payments are not being made, interest be also granted. The petitioner was appointed as Physical Trained Teacher on 19.10.1985 and thereafter ultimately superannuated from service on 31.10.2015. In the meantime, along with others, he was granted the benefit of 1st and 2nd A.C.P. with effect from 09.08.1999 and 01.01.2009 respectively. The controversy seems to have arisen with regard to the validity of grant of such A.C.P. and the matter came before the Court when petitioner and similarly situated persons moved the Court. The matter was remanded to the Director, Primary Education for consideration and ultimately the same has resulted in him holding that grant of 1st and 2nd A.C.P. was not proper and accordingly, direction has been given for re-fixing the pay in accordance with law and based on the same to grant him pensionary benefits. However, the authorities on the one hand are not paying pension, gratuity etc. and on the other hand are contemplating recovery of the amount which, according to them, has been drawn in excess on account of wrong grant of 1st and 2nd A.C.P. in terms of the letter of the District Programme Officer, Establishment (Education) , Siwan to the Block Education Officer, Maharajganj contained in Letter No. 2175 dated 06.10.2017. It appears that pursuant to the same, the process has also started in computing the alleged excess amount drawn by the petitioner which has been quantified as Rs. 7,40, 697/-.