DEOLAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this case was appointed as a Senior Instructor in the I.T.I., Hazaribagh. He had joined the service under the State of Bihar on 15.06.1967. He was given first time bound promotion after completing more than 10 years in service on 01.04.1981, on the pay scale of Rs. 850 -1360/ -. The petitioner was also granted second time bound promotion with corresponding increase in the pay scale. The petitioner was superannuated on 31.10.2001 whereafter the provisional pension and gratuity, on being sanctioned by the concerned authorities of the respondents, was paid to him along with the amount of Group Insurance and amount of G.P.F. Such payments were made to him by the end of December, 2001. On 04.09.2002, petitioner's pay was re -fixed pursuant to the revision of pay scales by the respondent No. 3. Later in December, 2002, the petitioner was paid the Leave Encashment amount also. However, by order dated 15.07.2003 (Annexure -1) issued by the respondent No. 2, the petitioner was informed that the scale of pay as on 01.04.1981 which was the date of his first time bound promotion has been reassessed and fixed at a lower scale of Rs. 785 -1210/ -. The petitioner by his repeated representations vide Annexure -3 series, had submitted his objections against such lowering of his pay scales. Later, vide Annexure -2 issued by the respondent No. 3, the petitioner was directed to refund a sum of Rs. 24,688/ - as being the amount drawn by him allegedly by way of excess payment and on failure to refund the amount, it was stated that the amount would be recovered from his pension. The petitioner had filed his representation denying and disputing the claim of the respondents but the respondents have not considered the petitioner's prayer and are insisting upon recovering the amount of Rs. 24,688/ - from him through his pension amount.

(2.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1/2 and 3.

(3.) THE short question raised in this writ application is whether after retirement of the Government Employee can any amount be recovered from his pension on the ground that certain excess amount was paid to him erroneously by way of wrong computation of the salary and that too without taking recourse to the provisions as contained in Rule 43(B) of the Bihar/Jharkhand Pension Rules. The matter no more res -integra that since the Full Bench of this Court has answered this issue in a similar case by declaring that the recovery of any excess amount can be made from the Government employee after his retirement only in accordance with the provisions of Rule 43(B) of the Bihar/Jharkhand Pension Rules which contemplates that where any excess payment made to the Government Employee is required to be recovered, an enquiry has to be conducted within four years from the date of detection of the excess payment so made and in such enquiry adequate opportunity has to be given to the concerned employee to show cause as to why the recovery of the purported excess amount should not be made.