JUDGMENT
R.K. Merathia, J.
1. Heard
2. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner, that now the only grievance is with regard to deduction of Rs. 50.456/; and non-payment of enhanced gratuity and clearness allowance.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even if the petitioner was granted promotion wrongly, there was no misrepresentation on her pail and, therefore, no recovery of the extra amount can be made. He relied on the decision of the learned Single Judge of Court in the case of Suraj Rai v. State of Jharkhand and Ors. 2005 (1) JLJR 362 : 2002 (3) JCR 342 (Jhr). He further submitted that moreover prior to the said deduction, the petitioner was not given opportunity of hearing.
4. Regarding deduction, the stand of the State and the Accountant General is that the petitioner was first appointed as ‘Trained Dai” on 16,4.1969. She was promoted/appointed to the post of ‘ANM’, which she joined on 7.5.1980. On 15.2.1990 she was given time bound promotion with effect from 16.4.1981 and again on 15.6.1996, she was given time bound promotion with effect from 16.4,1994, by the Civil Surgeon Godda, taking her services from the date of initial appointment to the post of ‘Trained “Dai” All this was detected by the Accountant General, and thus the extra amount paid to her has been deducted. They relied on the Division Bench judgments of this Court in the case of Ram Chandra Singh and Ors. v. State of Jharkhand and Ors. and State of Jharkhand and Ors. v. (Smt.) Girish Kumari Prasad and Ors. . Paragraph 5 of the judgment of (Smt.) Girish Kumari Prasad and others (supra), has been referred, which reads as follows :-
5. That part, we find that when the matter finally reaches the Accountant General and it is found that some one had been given some thing that is not due, either because of negligence, collusion or fraud, it is the duty of the Accountant General, being the guardian of the finances of the State, to rectify the mistake committed either by omission or by commission by some one in the department. There cannot be any estoppel against seeking to recover an unauthorized payment made to an undeserving person. The fact that some one had made an undeserving person. The fact that some one had made an error in giving a time bound promotion to the writ petitioner when it was not due, could not clothe her with any special right. The rule applicable has to be universally applied….
5. It is also settled that in such case, no opportunity of hearing was required. In the circumstances, the impugned deduction cannot be held to be bad.
6. However, in so far the payment of enhanced gratuity and dearness allowance is concerned, the respondents are directed to send the revised sanction order to the Accountant General, within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order for the amounts to which she is legally entitled. The Accountant General in his turn shall pass appropriate order within one month from the date of receipt of such sanction.
7. With these observations and directions, this writ application disposed of.