BINOD KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has prayed for quashing the order, contained in Memo No. 15-21-06-1068 dated 9.4.2010, issued by the Additional Secretary to the Government, Finance Department, Jharkhand, Ranchi, whereby the Commandant J.A.P. 3, Govindpur, Dhanbad has been asked to recover the alleged excess amount paid by way of salary to the petitioner from the pensionary benefits and also for quashing the letter No. 15-21/06-3646 dated 30.12.2010, whereby defects have been alleged in the service book of the petitioner. The petitioner has further prayed for a direction for payment of arrears of salary for the period mentioned in paragraph-1 and advance increment, which was due in 1969-70. The petitioner was appointed as Sub Inspector of Police in the year 1969. After completing Basic Police Training at P.T.C., Hazaribagh, the petitioner was posted at various places. The petitioner was promoted to the rank of Dy. S.P. on 22.08.2005. In the said rank, he was lastly posted at J.A.P.-3, Govindpur, Dhanbad. He retired from that post on 31.1.2007.

(2.) It has been stated that during the period of service his pay was fixed by the competent authority and approved by the Accountant General, Bihar. After his retirement, the petitioner was entitled to get post retiral benefits as well as service benefits on that basis, but the same were not paid to him for several years. Suddenly, the impugned letter dated 9.4.2010 was issued by the Additional Secretary to the Government, Finance Department, Jharkhand, Ranchi alleging that the petitioner's pay was improperly fixed and that the excess amount paid on that basis is liable to be recovered from him in lump sum. The said respondent also issued another letter dated 31.12.2010 alleging that there were certain defects in the service book of the petitioner.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was paid salary on the basis of due fixation of pay made by the competent authority and approved by the Accountant General, Bihar. It has been further stated that there is no allegation that any excess amount has been drawn by the petitioner by any misrepresentation or fraud. The petitioner retired in the year 2007. In course of his long service, no such objection was ever made by the authority. When the petitioner claimed his retiral dues and service benefits, the said letter has been deliberately issued.