AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State.
The petitioners have moved the Court for quashing of
order contained in Letter No. 1931 dated 24.06.2015, passed by the
respondent no. 3, by which the promotion given to them in Graduate
trained scale has been cancelled and order has been made for
recovery.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in
the year 2011, they were granted promotion on the basis of being
Matric trained and having completed 24 years of service and
thereafter in the year 2013, on the basis of them being Graduate
trained, further financial benefits was granted to them. Learned
counsel submitted that the said two increments in their emoluments
were granted after the duly constituted Committee recommended their
case and which was accepted by the Competent Authority. Learned
counsel submitted that payment was also made and only because of
objection raised by the Accountant General, the same has been
withdrawn and recovery ordered. Learned counsel relied upon
decisions of the Division Benches of this Court in the case of State of
Bihar v. Ram Sharan Prasad Singh reported as 2007(Supp.) PLJR
223 as well as State of Bihar vs. Rajendra Prasad Shrivastava
reported as 2016 (3) PLJR 509, for the proposition that if without any
laches or misrepresentation on the part of the petitioners, monetary
benefits have accrued and payment made, the same cannot be
recovered.
Learned counsel for the State submitted that in view of
the objection raised by the Accountant General, they have also found
that the objection was correct and the second Graduate trained benefit
was wrongly granted to the petitioners.
Having considered the rival contentions, this Court
finds that the order needs interference partly. The benefit given to the
petitioners on account of a duly constituted Committee having
approved such payment and benefits also derived by them and
payment made, there cannot be any recovery as there was no fault,
laches or misrepresentation on their part. That is one aspect of the
matter. The other aspect of the matter is that if a bona fide mistake has
been committed by the Authorities, they are always at liberty to
correct the same but, it can only be done prospectively.
For the reasons aforesaid, the authorities directing
for recovery of the amount already paid to the petitioners is set aside.
However, the State shall be at liberty to notionally rectify their salary,
as per their entitlement, prospectively, either re-fixing their
pensionary benefits or if they are in service, for payment to them
henceforth after re-fixing their salary/emoluments.
The writ petition stands disposed off in the
aforementioned terms.