SARASWATI MISHRA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present writ petition has been preferred mainly against the order passed by the respondents at Annexure -3 to the memo of the petition dated 22.10.2008 whereby the order has been passed by the respondent no.6, The District Superintendent of Education, Deoghar for deduction of Rs.2,92,427/ - from the retiral benefits of the present petitioner.

(2.) COUNSEL for the petitioner submitted that petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher w.e.f 1.2.1970. Thereafter, the petitioner was given promotion i.e. selection grade w.e.f. 11.7.1988 with retrospective effect i.e. 21.1.1984. Thereafter the petitioner worked for several years and petitioner retired on 30.9.2008. The petitioner throughout worked honestly, sincerely, diligently and to the satisfaction of the respondents. Never any notice was given to the petitioner for any misconduct nor any notice was given to the petitioner that she was wrongly given selection grade . But after petitioner retired, unilaterally and arbitrarily the order has been passed on 22.10.2010 for deduction of Rs.2,92,427/ -from the retiral benefits of the present petitioner. This order of recovery was passed without giving any notice and without giving any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner also submitted that there is no fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner. Never this is the allegation against the petitioner. Selection grade, which was given in the year 1988 w.e.f. January, 1984 has been held as invalid, in the year 2008 and that too without any notice and after the retirement of the present petitioner and therefore, the same may be quashed and set aside. 2007 (4) JLJR 466, wherein it has been held that once the benefit is given to the employee and there is no allegation of malafide, misrepresentation or fraud played by the employee then the monetary benefit cannot be ordered to be retained by the State authorities. In the facts of the present case also there is no misrepresentation or fraud or malafide on the part of the petitioner for getting selection grade w.e.f. 21.1.1984 and therefore, the monetary benefit which was given prior to the retirement cannot be now ordered to be recovered by the respondent no.6 by the impugned order dated 22.10.2008 and hence also the impugned order at Annexure -3 deserves to be quashed and set aside.

(3.) Counsel for the State -respondents submitted that petitioner has wrongly been given selection grade by order dated 11.7.1988 w.e.f. 21.1.1984 and therefore, the monetary benefit has been ordered to be retained by the respondent no.6 by order dated 22.10.2008 at Annexure -3 to the memo of the petition. Counsel for the State -respondents submitted that the order at Annexure -3 dated 22.10.2008 has been passed on the basis of general circular issued dated 2.4.1990, which is at Annexure -B to the counter -affidavit filed by the State and no illegality has been committed by the respondents in passing an order for recovery of amount at Rs.2,92,427/ -and therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed.