(1.) In this petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order/letter dated 22nd September, 2003, issued by the District Education Officer, Dumka/Jamtara communicated by letter No. 1231 whereby the respondents were directed to recover the amount of additional increment, which was paid to the petitioner in terms of Rule 22(1)(c) of the Fundamental Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Rules'). The petitioner has further prayed for quashing the letter No. 1079 dated 4.12.2004, issued by the District Education Officer, Dumka/Jamtara, whereby direction has been given for withdrawing the increment granted under the said Rule.
(2.) The petitioner was appointed as Teacher in Santhal High School, Kairabani in the year 1965. On attaining the age of superannuation, he retired from the said post on 31.1.2002. At the time of his appointment, the petitioner was I.Sc. pass. Subsequently, he passed the course of basic teachers training and B.A. Examination. On that basis, the petitioner was given B.A. trained scale w.e.f. 31.3.1980. In 1982, the petitioner was granted revised scale of the basic pay. After completion of 11 years of service, he was granted additional increment and senior central scale by way of time bound promotion w.e.f. 16.11.1991 under the provision of. Rule 22(c) of the said Rules.
(3.) After retirement of the petitioner, an objection was raised by the Accountant General, Bihar regarding admissibility of the additional increment granted to him under the purported provision of Rule 22(c) of the Rules. The Director of the Department issued a letter to the District Education Officer, Dumka in view of the said objection of the Accountant General. On that basis, the District Education Officer, Dumka by his letter dated 21.5.2003 held that the additional increment paid to the petitioner in terms of Rule 22(c) of the Rules was not admissible. He, therefore, directed for re-fixation of the pay-scale and recovery of the excess amount from the petitioner. Accordingly, by impugned letter dated 4.12.2004 direction was given to withdraw the increment granted to the petitioner in terms of Rule 22(c) of the Rules. The respondents on that basis intended to recover the excess amount paid to the petitioner as an additional increment in terms of the said Rules. Aggrieved by the above, the petitioner preferred the instant writ petition.