SHYAMA KUMARI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

LAWS(JHAR)-2003-1-93

HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND

Decided on January 30,2003

SHYAMA KUMARI Appellant

VERSUS

STATE OF JHARKHAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

VIKRAMADITYA PRASAD, J. - (1.) HEARD both the sides. The basic question to be answered in this case is whether in the event of fixation of pay by competent authorities and subsequent detection by a lower authority that the fixation was erroneous the pay so given to the petitioner without her misrepresentation can be recovered.
(2.) THE question aforesaid arose out of the following facts : The petitioner claims to be appointed as a Teacher and subsequently her pay was fixed in Matric trained scale of Rs. 280 -340 with effect from 1.11.1976 then w.e.J. 4.1.1988 she was given first time bound promotion after completion of ten years of service and consequently, her scale was fixed again. The petitioners pay was revised in accordance with the provisions of Resolution No. 6 -022 dated 18.12.89 of the Finance Department. Her revised pay was again fixed after completion of twelve years on 9.7.87. In the year 1995, the Government of Bihar issued a Notification regarding computing the period of service for the purpose of giving the time bound promotion. In the year 1999 the petitioners pay scale was further revised w.e.f. 1.1.96 vide Annexure -8. This fixation was made under the signature of District Superintendent of Education and also it was approved by the District Accounts Officer. Then it transpires that suddenly the pay of the petitioner was reduced by five hundred without giving any opportunity to the petitioner of being heard. Then the petitioner protested against this and thereafter the Accounts Officer asked the Head Master of the D.A.V. School, Jharia where the petitioner worked, to send the pay statement of the relevant period for further verification vide Annexure -11. Then the Incharge Head Master of the D.A.V. School sent the letter (Annexure -12) to the petitioner stating therein that the first time bound promotion was given to her on the basis of order of the District Superintendent of Education w.e.J. 1.4.87 and subsequent thereto on the completion of twelve years the pay was fixed w.e.J. 9.7.87 in the scale of Rs. 1400 -2600/ - again w.e.J. 1.1.96 the pay scale was revised at Rs. 5000 -8000/ -. The D.A.V. School has also informed that all those pay fixations had been approved by D.S.E., Dhanbad and had been verified by the pay fixation branch of the Accounts Officer, Dhanbad but the Incharge Head Master had found some error in pay fixation and therefore, the salary of the petitioner was reduced at his own level from February, 1990 and the difference of pay is being deducted. There is no dispute of the fact that pay was not fixed by the D.S.E. and it was verified by the District Accounts Officer. There is also no dispute with regard to the fact that the D.S.E. or its District Account Officer are not superior authorities that the Head Master. It Is also not stated that the petitioner ever misrepresented before the authority and got her pay fixed in the relevant scale with the relevant dates as discussed above. If there is no fault on the part of the petitioner, the excess payment made to her cannot be recovered, in view of the decision rendered in the case of Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana and Others reported in 1995 Supp (1) S.C.C. 18, So far as the question of re -fixation is concerned it is a question of fact and if some error has been detected, then the Accounts Officer could ask for the statement of payment from the Head Master then there is no legal bar in re -fixation of the salary by the competent authority after proper verification. Only relief granted is that excess of salary paid will not be recovered. But the respondents will re -fix the salary from the relevant dates. With the above directions, the writ is disposed of at the admission stage. ;

Click here to view full judgement.