AMARESHWAR SAHAY, J. - (1.) THE petitioner, being Science Graduate obtained B.Ed. degree, was initially appointed as Assistant Teacher on 16.4.1974 in Manohar Lal High School, Chakulia in the District of Singhbum (East). After completion of 10 years continuous service he was granted time bound promotion on 16.4.1984. Subsequently, in view of the Resolution dated 18.12.1989 of the Finance Department, Government of Bihar extending the benefit of revision of scale of pay to the teachers of those schools taken over and under the Administrative control of the Department of Human Resources Development, the petitioner was given benefit as per the aforesaid Resolution of the Government and his pay was fixed accordingly by the Headmaster of the concerned school on 20.4.1990.
(2.) SUBSEQUENTLY by issuance of letter No. 1354 dated 9.7.1997 as contained in Annexure -3 to the present writ application, the District Education Officer, Singhbum (West) Chaibasa, wrote a letter to the Headmaster of the school of the petitioner, stating therein that the petitioner was given time bound promotion on 16.4.1984 in the pay scale of Rs. 940 -1660.00 and his pay was fixed after giving him benefit of 12% interest and accordingly on 1.1.1986 his pay was fixed at Rs. 2360.00 . It was further stated in the said letter that the petitioner was wrongly given one increment in the pay scale and therefore, the payment made to him in excess, be realized in one lump sum and his pay should be re -fixed. The petitioner has challenged the issuance of such order in the said letter (Annexure -3) issued by the District Education Officer.
(3.) IT has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that even if it is taken to be true for the sake of arguments that the pay of the petitioner was wrongly fixed but the order for realization of the amount paid in excess to him after the period of seven years was absolutely bad in law. It was next submitted that the pay of the petitioner was not fixed at his instance or on his misrepresentation, and therefore, the order for realization of excess amount is arbitrary and illegal. It was further submitted that no such order could have been passed without issuing a prior notice to the petitioner giving him a chance to explain or a chance of being heard and therefore, the same was violative of principle of natural justice.;