Nilu Sinha vs The State of Jharkhand and Others

Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.—In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the letter dated 7.11.06 contained in Annexure-4 and for fixing the family pension and payment of the same on the basis of the salary drawn by her rate husband and also to pay the amount of gratuity payable to her late husband.

The petitioner''s late husband Dr. Anil Kumar Sinha was the Head Master of Middle School, Saraidhela Coalwashery Anchal, Dhanbad. During service period, he was given promotion to the pay scale of Rs. 2000-3500 w.e.f 1.1.1993. Accordingly, his pay was fixed and the same was paid to him. The petitioner''s husband died on 19.6.05. After his death, the District Superintendent of Education, Dhanbad has issued the impugned letter whereby the alleged excess amount paid to the petitioner''s late husband on account of his promotion in the pay scale of Rs. 2000-3500 has been sought to be recovered saying that higher scale was not admissible in view of the fact that the petitioner''s late husband had not passed the Departmental Hindi noting and Drafting Examination which was required for promotion and giving higher scale.

Learned J.C. to G.P.-III appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that for promotion to the higher post and giving higher scale from Rs. 2000-3500, the employee was required to pass departmental Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination. But the petitioner''s late husband got the higher scale of pay without complying with the said provision and as -such the excess amount paid to the petitioner''s late husband during his service penal is recoverable. By the impugned order the excess amount paid to him has been sought to he recovered after calculating the same on the basis of the pay scale of Rs. 2000-3500 which was then admissible to him.

Learned J.C to G.P-III, however, admitted the legal position that any amount paid during service period to an employee as the promotional benefit without his misrepresentation or without any fraud played by him, is not recoverable. More so, any such amount cannot be recovered from the widow or the heirs of the employee without following the due procedure established by law which, admittedly, has not been followed in this case.

In view of the said submission of learned Counsel for the respondents and also in view of the established law, the letter dated 7.11.06 of the District Superintendent of Education, Dhanbad (Annexure-4) cannot sustain and the same is, hereby, quashed. This writ petition is allowed.

The District Superintendent of Education, Dhanbad (respondent No. 3) is directed to pay the petitioner''s family pension and all the admitted dues payable to her including the arrears of family pension or any amount, which was payable to her late husband, but had not been paid to him in view of Annexure-4, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order. If the admissible amount(s) is/are not paid to the petitioner within the said period, she shall be entitled to get interest @ 10% per annum within the date the same is/are payable till the date of final payment in addition to the statutory interest. In that case, the State Government shall be at liberty to realize the amount of penal interest from the erring official(s).

With the said observations/directions, this writ petition is disposed of.