IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13471 of 2008
Shambhu Nath Pandey, aged about 51 years, son of
Late Rajendra Pandey, resident of village Belwa,
P.O. Adapur, Police Station Harpur, District East
Champaran..............................................................................Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar, through the Commissioner,
Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of
Bihar, New Secretariate, Patna.
2. The Commissioner, Finance Department, Govt.
of Bihar, Old Secretariate, Patna.
3. The Director, Primary Education, Govt. of
Bihar, Patna.
4. The District Superintendent of Education,
Motihari, East Champaran.
5. The Head Master, Govt. Middle School, Adapur
(boys), Adapur, East Champaran..................Respondents
--------
4 08.11.2011 Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner as well as learned counsel for
the State.
Learned counsel for the petitioner
confines the prayer of the petitioner in
this writ application to a challenge to the
order of the District Superintendent of
Education, East Champaran contained in
Letter no.1059 dated 14.05.2008, vide
Annexure-3, by which he has been directed
to deposit an amount of Rs.1,48,774/- in
one instalment in the treasury, allegedly
paid to him in excess of his entitlement.
Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that petitioner was paid Matric
Trained scale under the orders of the
2
District Superintendent of Education dated
22.12.1993 in the light of some judgment of
this Court, vide Annexure-1. He admits that
subsequently in view of the judgment of the
larger Bench of this Court, physical
Trained Teachers have been held not
entitled for Matric Trained scale. Hence he
does not press this application for any
direction to the respondents to pay the
petitioner Matric Trained scale. But he
submits that since scale was paid to him,
may be wrongly, on the orders of the
competent authority, in the light of the
some judgment of this Court, excess amount
paid to him should not be recovered.
A counter affidavit has been filed.
Learned counsel for the respondents submits
that since petitioner was not entitled for
Matric Trained scale, the order of recovery
has been issued directing him to deposit
the excess amount paid to him in the
treasury.
Annexure-1 shows that the order for
grant of Matric Trained scale to the
petitioner was issued by the District
Superintendent of Education on the basis of
3
some orders of this Court. As such,
apparently there was no fraud or
misrepresentation on the part of the
petitioner in the matter.
As such, on equitable
considerations, this Court finds that the
respondents should not be allowed to
recover the amount paid to petitioner in
excess of his entitlement on the basis of
said Annexure-1. The impugned order
(Annexure-3) is, therefore, quashed and
respondents are restrained from recovering
the alleged amount paid to him pursuant to
the said order of District Superintendent
of Education as contained in Annexure-1.
The writ application is allowed with
the aforesaid observations and directions.
(J. N. Singh, J.)
BT