- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE petitioner is aggrieved, as according to him, after his retirement a sum of Rs. 81,189/ has been ordered to be recovered as excess payment by the impugned order dated 8th December, 2003, issued by the office of Accountant General (A&E), Jharkhand on the ground that the petitioner was wrongly granted scale of Rs. 14002600/ w.e.f. 1st December, 1983 instead of 22nd December, 1992. According to the petitioner, he joined as Assistant Teacher on 7th September, 1973 and superannuated from Middle School Sri Ram Chauki (Mirza Chauki) in the district of Sahibganj on 31st January, 2002. The office of Accountant General thereafter made a communication on 31st January, 2003 addressed to the District Superintendent of Education of Sahibganj stating that the petitioner has been wrongly granted time bound promotion in matric trained scale vide letter dated 14th April, 1981 as per which the petitioner was granted time bound promotion w.e.f. 1st December,1983, which he ought to have been given w.e.f. 21st November, 1992 and as such his salary was wrongly fixed. Pursuant thereto, the District Superintendent of Education informed the Treasury Officer, Sahibganj for recovery of the amount of Rs. 81,189/ from the pension and gratuity of the petitioner as being paid in excess. A letter to that effect was also sent to the Deputy Commissioner, Sahibganj pursuant to the communication of the Office of Accountant General.
(3.) IT is the case of the petitioner that he represented before the office of Treasury Officer (Annexure6), but he was informed vide Annexure7 that the recovery is made pursuant to the order of office of Accountant General. Subsequently vide impugned order dated 8th December, 2003 the petitioner's representation has been rejected by the office of Accountant General without interfering with its previous order. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment rendered by Full Bench in the case of State of Jharkhand and othersVs. Padmalochan Kalindi reported in 2008(1) JCR 5 Jhr. (FB) to submit that such a recovery of payment made to him 20 years back cannot be made after retirement without resorting to the procedure prescribed under the Jharkhand Pension Rules, especially from the pensionary benefits of the retired employee when there was no allegation of misrepresentation or fraud practised by the employee himself.;