IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
LPA No.1435 of 2010
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR
2. The Deputy Director General N.C.C. Directorate, Bihar & Jharkhand
Rajendra Path Patna. 800019.
3. The Group Commander, N.C.C. Group Head Quarter, Muzaffarpur.
4. The Commanding Officer 7, Bihar Battalion, N.C.C. Saran Chapra.
.................... Appellants / Respondents.
Versus
RAM NARAYAN SINGH, S/O. Late Kuldip Singh, R/O. Village -
Sukhpura, District - Balia, (U.P.).
.................. Respondent / Petitioner.
-----------
For the Appellants :- Mr. Vishwajeet Kumar Mishra,
A.C. To G.A. IX.
For the Respondent :- Mr. Shashi Shekhar Tiwary, Advocate.
04/ 21.01.2011 The present L.P.A. application has been filed
against the order dated 03.02.2010 passed in C.W.J.C. No.
2299 of 2005 whereby the learned Single Judge after going
through the merits of the case has allowed the petitioner-
respondent herein.
The respondents-appellants have challenged the
order passed by the learned Single Judge questioning the
action to the respondents-appellants withholding the amount
of Rs.81,693/- on the ground of excess payment w.e.f. 1st
April, 1981 to 30th June, 2001.
The case of the petitioner-respondent before the
learned Single Judge was that the authority has no right to
withhold the amount as it is not a case of misrepresentation of
2
excess payment, misrepresentation or fraud.
The appellants-respondents herein being the
respondents took the stand that even there is direction of the
Commandant not to make payment, as the State of Bihar has
not accepted the revision of pay scale, still the Commandant
has paid the excess salary and it is also contended that the
appellants have not placed the letters addressed by the
department before the Commandant. The learned Single
Judge has not accepted the contention finding that there is no
material available to come to such conclusion as the
Commandant has failed to take action against the respondent-
petitioner. The learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf
of the department has also contended that more so letters
advanced before the learned Single Judge contending that the
respondent-petitioner was at fault in not putting the letters
before the Commandant and he has misconducted himself.
However, there is no material placed before this Court to
support such contention and the fact remains that the said
Commandant has not taken any action against the
respondent-petitioner if any of the letters have not been
placed before him normally for a period of more than 15
years. In the absence of such material, we have no hesitation
3
in upholding the order of the learned Single Judge passed in
the writ petition and we see no force in the contention of the
learned counsel for the appellants.
The L.P.A. application is dismissed without
costs.
(T. Meena Kumari, J.)
(Gopal Prasad, J.)
S.A./Kundan