NOONOOLAL PRASAD Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND & ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) The petitioner is aggrieved by a part of the order dated 2.3.2013, wherein the District Education Officer, Ranchi while passing the order of sanction of pension and gratuity in respect of the petitioner, on his retirement on 28.2.2013 as an Assistant Teacher of nationalized High School, Piska Naori, Ranchi, had chosen to deduct Rs. 97,702.00, which is said to have been paid in excess under Fundamental Rule 22-C (for short the 'Rule 22-C1) to the petitioner, from the total gratuity amount of Rs. 8,35,930.00 payable to him. The same is being challenged by the writ petitioner, on the ground, inter-alia, (i) that it has been done without any show cause or notice, after the retirement of the petitioner, by impugned order dated 2.3.2013, passed by the District Education Officer, Ranchi, (ii) that there has been no fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner in the matter of payment of the salary fixed by granting increments in terms of the Rule 22-C, (iii) that on identical issues, following the judgment in the case of Syed Abdul Qadir & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors., reported in 2009(1) SCC (L & S) 744, rendered by the Honourable Supreme Court, in the same context, the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. (S) No. 626 of 2005 vide judgment dated 29.1.2010 in the case of Anil Chandra Pandit Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors., reported in 2010 (2) JCR 203 has been pleased to quash such an order of recovery and directed refund of the same.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the additional increment, paid under the Rule 22-C, was made by conscious application of mind by the respondents themselves, though it is said that the said Rule 22-C was substituted by FR 22 (1) (a) (1) and FR (1) (a) (2) before the date of resolution. However, the learned Single Judge while following the Apex Court judgment found that the said petitioner had also not committed any misrepresentation or fraud on their part but on the wrong interpretation and application of the Rule by the concerned respondents, the payments were made to him during his service period, which was sought to be recovered. Counsel for the petitioner submits that, in such circumstances, the part of the said order dated 2.3.2013, deserves to be quashed and the amount, recovered from his gratuity, be ordered to be refunded.