Balmukund Prasad S/o Late Gopi Prasad Resident vs The State of Bihar

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; State and

Accountant General.

The petitioner has moved the Court for the following

reliefs:

"(i) For issuance of a direction to the respondent to correct the assessment of retirement benefit of the petitioner passed by District Programme Officer Education Establishment o/o D.E.O. Nalanda (the respondent no.-5) vide memo no.-3362 dated 31.10.2015 in which the earned leaved of the petitioner was directed to the paid only for 252 days in spite of 287 days i.e. 35 days less for which the letter was issued by the D.S.E. Nalanda vide letter no. 2158 dated 19-06-2009 and the competent authority made a categorical remark in the service book of the petitioner. (ii) For issuance of a direction to the respondent concerned for making correct assessment of the pension of the petitioner which was issued by Resp No - 8 vide P.P.O. No. 201511102576 dated 26-11-2015. (iii) For issuance of a direction to the respondent to correct the assessment of the last pay drawn by the petitioner which was reduced from 22000/- per month to Rs. 21360/- and the amount of Rs. 18628/- was reduced under the head of gratuity which has now been calculated Rs. 654892/- from Rs. 673520/- earlier. (iv) For any other relief/reliefs for which the petitioner is found entitled to be in the facts and circumstances of the case."

In sum and substance, today the submission of learned

counsel for the petitioner is that even if he has been paid something

extra by mistake, he not being the Drawing and Disbursing Officer

and having no role in such fixation, there cannot be any recovery.

For such proposition, he relied upon a decision of the Hon''ble

Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih

reported as (2015)4 SCC 334.

On a query of the Court to learned counsel for the

State as to whether there was any mistake or laches or fault on the

part of the petitioner in drawing excess/extra emoluments, the answer

is in the negative.

Having considered the matter, the writ petition stands

disposed off holding that there cannot be any recovery made from

the retiral dues of the petitioner for alleged excess payment made to

him beyond his entitlement. However, his pensionary benefits shall

be fixed and monthly pension also fixed in terms of his correct

entitlement and not in terms of his last pay drawn by him. To that

extent, the authorities are justified in reducing the pension of the

petitioner, as earlier the same was fixed in a higher scale, which is

now required to be reduced, as per his entitlement. With regard to

whatever recovery has been made, the same shall be returned to him

within one month from the date of production of a copy of this order

before the respondent no. 5.