SUSHMA PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the present writ application the petitioner is aggrieved by the order directing for recovery of alleged salary drawn by her on account of wrong grant of increment because she never passed the Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination which was a pre -condition for grant of increment in the case of Headmistress.

(2.) ADMITTEDLY , at the relevant time the petitioner was working as Headmistress. There seems to be some dispute about her passing the Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination. According to the petitioner, she passed the Examination in question and an endorsement was made in her service book on the basis of letter no.28 dated 31.7.1978 of the District Education Officer, Patna. No such letter has, however, been produced by the petitioner.

(3.) IN view of the law settled that no such deduction can be made where payments have been made due to mistake on the part of the authority and not because of misrepresentation by the employee, learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the Accountant General, in the facts and circumstances, did not fairly press to support the order for recovery passed against the petitioner. He, however, submitted that according to the settled principle, only the Courts, including the Apex Court have held that it was not open for the authority to recover the same because of the employee concerned had not received the said amount on any misrepresentation and not that the pensionary benefits cannot be fixed on the basis of the pay admissible to the employee concerned. He, however, submitted that the matter has again been referred to the District Superintendent of Education, Patna for verification and in case on verification it is found that the petitioner had passed the Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination or that she was granted exemption from passing the said examination, the Accountant General shall take necessary steps for release of her full pension on the basis of the last pay drawn by her.