BHOLA NATH PANDEY Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) THE petitioner is aggrieved, as according to him, after his retirement a sum of Rs. 81,189/ has been ordered to be recovered as excess payment by the impugned order dated 8th December, 2003, issued by the office of Accountant General (A&E), Jharkhand on the ground that the petitioner was wrongly granted scale of Rs. 14002600/ w.e.f. 1st December, 1983 instead of 22nd December, 1992.

(3.) IT is the case of the petitioner that he represented before the office of Treasury Officer (Annexure6), but he was informed vide Annexure7 that the recovery is made pursuant to the order of office of Accountant General. Subsequently vide impugned order dated 8th December, 2003 the petitioner's representation has been rejected by the office of Accountant General without interfering with its previous order. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment rendered by Full Bench in the case of State of Jharkhand and othersVs. Padmalochan Kalindi reported in 2008(1) JCR 5 Jhr. (FB) to submit that such a recovery of payment made to him 20 years back cannot be made after retirement without resorting to the procedure prescribed under the Jharkhand Pension Rules, especially from the pensionary benefits of the retired employee when there was no allegation of misrepresentation or fraud practised by the employee himself.