High CourtsSingle Bench

Tameshwar Prasad Singh vs The State of Bihar and Others

Patna High Court · Decided on 28 September 1999 · Citation: (2000) 1 PLJR 172

HON’BLE JUDGES
Radha Mohan Prasad, J
CASE NUMBER
C.W.J.C. No. 635 of 1999
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

2 paragraphs · 351 words

Radha Mohan Prasad, J.—In this writ petition the dispute, in fact, is in regard to fixation of pay of the petitioner in the revised scale with effect from 25.2.1986. According to the petitioner, he was entitled for fixation of his pay at Rs. 1560/- on 25.2.1986 whereas, according to the learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the Accountant General, the petitioner was entitled for fixation of his pay at Rs. 1520/- on 25.2.1986 on completion of 12 years of his service. It is stated that the petitioner continued to get the pay on the basis of the said fixation of his pay till he superannuated from service on 31.12.1996. There appears to be substance in the said submission of the learned Additional Standing Counsel that the pay of the petitioner on 25.2.1986 was wrongly fixed at Rs. 1560/- instead of Rs. 1520+10. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that in any view of the matter, no recovery is permissible of the emolument that the petitioner received pursuant to fixation of his pay since 25.2.1986 in the absence of any finding of misrepresentation or commission of fraud by the petitioner.

2.

There is no allegation by the respondents that the petitioner''s pay was wrongly fixed on account of any misrepresentation or fraud committed by him. By now it is well settled that recovery of the alleged excess payment on the above ground is not permissible after such a long lapse of time. A reference can be made to the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of State of Bihar Vs. Narasimha Sundram, and in the case of Sahib Ram Vs. State of Haryana and Others, . However, there cannot be any justification to direct the authority to fix the pensionary benefits on the basis of wrong fixation of pay. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that no recovery of the alleged excess amount on the basis of wrong fixation of pay shall be made from the petitioner but the petitioner cannot claim refixation of his pension on the basis of wrong fixation of his pay.