DEODUTTA GIRI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner got retired from the post of Forest Area Officer on 31.7.2001. After his retirement on superannuation, the petitioner was being paid pension. However, on 3.5.2007, an order was passed by the respondent no. 2-Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Ranchi, whereby a sum of Rs. 84,518/- was sought to be recovered from the amount payable towards pension and gratuity on the ground that the aforesaid amount has been drawn by the petitioner in excess which he was not entitled to get. The said order has been sought to be quashed on the ground that the amount which has been sought to be recovered has been paid to the petitioner without there being any misrepresentation on his part and as such, the respondent does not have any authority to recover the same without taking recourse to the provision, as contained in Section 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, which proposition has been laid down by this Court in the case of Laxman Prasad Gupta vs. State of Jharkhand, 2007 4 JLJR 459.

(2.) With respect to the aforesaid statement made on behalf of the State in the counter affidavit, statement has been made in reply to the counter affidavit on behalf of the petitioner that the amount of Rs. 54,362/- had earlier been recovered from his pension, whereas the matter relating to recovery of the amount of Rs. 84,518/- under Memo No. 2158 dated 3.5.2007 (Annexure-4) is quite different, as it is said that on account of excess salary being drawn, the State Government has been put to loss.

(3.) Thus, it is quite evident that the matter relating to recovery of a sum of Rs. 54,362/- is quite different than the matter which is involved in this case, wherein it is said that a sum of Rs. 54,498/- is said to have been drawn in excess on account of wrong fixation of pay. Further, it appears that other amount towards leave encashment, dearness allowance and gratuity has also been taken in excess and, therefore, total amount of Rs. 84,518/- has been sought to be recovered from the amount of pension and gratuity without taking recourse of the provision, as contained in Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules and as such, the order, as contained in Annexure-4, is quite illegal in view of the ratio laid down by this Court in the case of Laxman Prasad Gupta , wherein it has been held that excess amount paid by mistake or on account of wrong promotion can be recovered after retirement from pension and gratuity only under the procedures contemplated under Rule 43(b) when excess amount so received is not a product of misrepresentation, collusion, fraud or negligence.