MD SAIJUDDIN SHEIKH Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, initially was appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher in Matric Trained Scale and was posted in the Middle School, Jampur, District-Sahibganj. Subsequently, he having been promoted to the post of Headmaster under order as contained in Letter No. 12673 dated 29.11.1967, was granted B.A. Trained Scale w.e.f. 06.10.1967. The petitioner was given Scale of Junior Selection Grade, under order as contained in Memo No. 15006-8 dated 01.07.1988, issued by the District Superintendent of Education (in short D.S.E.), Sahibganj. Thereafter, in the year 1999, the petitioner was promoted to the Senior Selection Grade under order as contained in Memo No. 1016 dated 19.11.1999, issued by the D.S.E.-cum-Sub Divisional Education Officer, Pakur and even the petitioner was given annual increment and while the petitioner was serving as a Headmaster, the D.S.E., Pakur issued a Letter No. 1579 dated 24.12.2002 (Annexure-3), whereby all the Drawing and Disbursing Officers of the Block under the Pakur District was directed to recover the excess amount, paid as salary, whose name does find mentioned in the Audit Report, but when the said order was not complied with, D.S.E., Pakur, again vide his Letter No. 277 dated 28.03.2003 (Annexure-4), directed all the concerned persons, including the Treasury Officers of the Pakur and Maheshpur to recover the amount, which has been paid in excess and these two letters have been sought to be quashed, on the grounds that the petitioner, who superannuated on 31.01.2004, never drew any amount in excess, rather he drew amount of salary on the Scale granted to the petitioner time to time, duly approved by the competent authorities and that order of recovery has been passed, without giving any opportunity to the petitioner of hearing, which is against the principle of natural justice. The said orders have also been sought to be quashed on the ground that the petitioner was given promotion on higher Scale upon the decision taken by the authorities on his own and not on the misrepresentation by the petitioner.

(2.) The case of the respondents, as has been disclosed in the counter affidavit is that the Accountant General, Jharkhand, Ranchi in course of audit conducted in the Office of the respondent No. 4- District Superintendent of Education, Pakur, found that large number of Teachers had been given illegal promotion to the post of Headmaster and I.A/ B.A. Trained Teachers with retrospective effect, without approval of the Finance Department and, accordingly, he submitted report vide his Memo No. 166 dated 04.10.2002 (Annexure-A to the counter affidavit filed on behalf the respondent No. 4) wherein petitioner s name find mentioned and it has been staled that the petitioner has been promoted to the Senior Selection Grade, without recommendation of the District Education Establishment Committee and the Regional Deputy Director, Santhal Pargana, Dumka and had also noticed that the petitioner has been given Pay Scale of B.A. Trained Junior Selection Grade on 01.07.1988, but with retrospective effect from 01.04.1981, which is quite illegal and as such orders were issued, directing the Drawing and Disbursing Officers, to deposit the excess amount, which have been challenged before this High Court, though under that orders those amounts have been sought to be recovered, which has illegally been drawn by the petitioner for which he was not entitled to and, therefore the impugned orders need not to be interfered with, by this Court.

(3.) Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner having been joined the service as, Assistant Teacher, in the year 1965, was given promotion to Junior Selection Grade/Senior Selection Grade and was also given B.A. Trained Scale, under the decision taken by the authorities and not on the misrepresentation by the petitioner and, therefore, the authorities, in view of the ratio laid down in a case of Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana and Ors.,1995 Supp 1 SCC 18, cannot recover the amount, said to have been drawn in excess, moreover in a situation, when the petitioner has retired on superannuation, during pendency of this writ application.