- (1.) By the Court.--The petitioner having been appointed on the post of teacher, joined the service on 5.1.1970. In course of service, he was granted I.A. trained scale and B.A. trained scale in the year 1971 and 1974 respectively. In the year 1987. he was granted first time bound promotion. While the petitioner was posted as Headmaster in Madhya Vidyalaya, Dharampur, Pakur he got retired on his superannuation on 31.5.2006. At that time, he was drawing salary in the scale of Rs. 12,250/-. After more than a year of his retirement, when amount of leave encashment was sanctioned, it could be known to the petitioner that the last pay of the petitioner is being taken as Rs. 11,500/- instead of Rs. 12,250/-. He immediately made representation in this respect but nothing fruitful came out. Later on, when the petitioner received a letter dated 5.10.2007 relating to payment of gratuity, he was shocked to learn that a sum of Rs. 94,977/- only payable as gratuity, whereas out of Rs. 3,50,000/-which was payable to the petitioner as gratuity, a sum of Rs. 2,55,023/- has been withheld without assigning any reason. In that situation, the petitioner preferred a writ application being W.P.(S) No. 6983 of 2007 wherein following prayers were made: (i) To quash the letter dated 5.10.2007 issued by the office of the respondent No. 8 with regard to the payment of D.C.R.G. by which Rs. 2,55,000/- and only Rs. 94,977/- payable to the petitioner. ii) To fix the pension on the basis of last payment received by lie petitioner Rs. 12,250/-. (iii) To pay the arrears of pension after making proper correction in P.P.O which was issued by the office of the respondent No. 8 in favour of the petitioner on 5.10.2007. (iv) To pay entire amount of provident fund to the petitioner with interest. (v) To pay the arrears of leave encashment on the basis of last payment received by the petitioner. (vi) To pay the interest at the rate of 12% on the entire retiral dues.
(2.) This Court having heard counsel for the parties did find the impugned order to be quite erroneous as by the said order a sum of Rs. 2,55,023/- was deducted from the gratuity of the petitioner after showing it as Government due without assigning any reason whatsoever that too after retirement of the petitioner. Consequently, he petitioner was asked to file a representation before the authority, so that it be disposed of in accordance with law.
(3.) Accordingly, representation was filed before the District Superintendent of Education, Pakur, respondent No. 3 and also before the Accountant General (A and E). Jharkhand, Ranchi, respondent No. 5. The District Superintendent of Education. Pakur, vide its order dated 5.2.2009 as contained in memo No. 25-45/07-214 (Annexure 3) justified the action of recovery of Rs. 2,55,023/- from the gratuity on the plea that I.A trained scale had wrongly been fixed in the pay scale of Rs. 1260/- instead of pay scale of Rs.1200/- whereby the petitioner drew a sum of Rs.2,55,023/- in excess and therefore, upon mistake being corrected, excess amount has been directed to be deducted from the amount of gratuity which is quite legal, in view of the ratio laid down in a case of Aran Kumar Kashyap v. State of Jharkhand and others, 2008 4 JCR 98.;