MD. ULFAT HUSSAIN Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By Court.--Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Accountant General and learned counsel appearing for the State.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner-an Assistant Teacher, while was posted at Millat High School, Dhapra, district Godda was given annual increment. On getting increment, pay of the petitioner was fixed under Rule 22-C of the Fundamental Rule. On fixation of pay, the petitioner was drawing salary in the said Scale. Subsequently, it was detected that the fixation of pay had wrongly been made in terms of Rule 22-C of the Fundamental Rule, instead of 22(I)(a)(2) of the Fundamental Rule and. thereby, an order was passed on 05.1.2004 (Annexure-5) by the Office of the Accountant General, bringing to the notice of the authority that, it has wrongly been fixed under Rule 22-C of the Fundamental Rule, rather it should have been fixed under Rule 22(I)(a)(2) of the Fundamental Rule and, therefore, request was made for its rectification and also for recovery of the amount drawn by the petitioner in excess. Part of that order under which recovery was sought to be made, has been challenged to be bad.

(3.) Learned counsel further submits that similar matter came up for. consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Syed Abdul Quadir & Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors., in Civil Appeal Nos. 3351-3354 of 2003 and Civil Appeal Nos. 3355 and 3364 of 2003 wherein it was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the salary had wrongly been fixed under Rule 22-C of the Fundamental Rule rather it should have been fixed under Rule 22(I)(a)(2) of the Fundamental Rule. At the same time, it was also held that on account of wrong fixation on the part of the authority, the State cannot recover the amount drawn in excess.