PRAMATH PATNAIK,J. - (1.) In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for direction upon the respondents to refund the deducted amount of Rs. 32,169/-, which has been wrongly deducted in the name of excess payment pursuant to alleged wrong promotion and further to make payment to the petitioner of benefits of promotion granted w.e.f 01.04.1998 by making payment of arrears of pay as well as pension and further to correctly fix the revised pay-scale @ basic pay Rs. 15,130/- instead of Rs. 15,120/- and also for arrears of benefits of 6th pay revision with interest on above unpaid as well as deducted amount.
(2.) The petitioner retired on 31.08.2007 from the post of Teacher from Government Girls' Middle School, Rajrappa Project. Prior to her retirement, promotion was granted vide office order dated 26.02.2004 w.e.f. 01.04.1993 but later on the date of promotion of the petitioner along with others was corrected vide order dated 26.08.2008 and it was made effective from 07.10.1995. Thereafter, a detailed statement was prepared by the Headmaster of the school on 05.12.2007 with regard to alleged excess payment of Rs. 32,169/-. The amount already recovered from the petitioner was mentioned as Rs. 19,820/- and the amount of Rs. 12,349/- was shown to be due for further recovery. It has further been submitted that sometimes thereafter promotion was granted to the petitioner w.e.f. 01.04.1998 but the benefit of such promotion has not been given to the petitioner. It has further been submitted that on perusal of letter dated 19.04.2010 issued by Accountant General (A and E) addressed to D.S.E., Ramgarh, it appears that it could not be processed due to default and failure on the part of respondent-D.S.E, Ramgarh. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that lastly on 20.10.2010 a pension payment order was issued by the office of Accountant General (A and E), but the pension was fixed @ Rs. 10,465/- instead of Rs. 10,470/. It has further been submitted that consequential benefits of 6th Pay Revision has also not been extended to the petitioner. So far as recovery is concerned, no deduction or recovery can be made from the retiral dues on the grounds of excess payment which was made on account of promotion or otherwise also as no fraud or mis-representation has been done on the part of petitioner, such deduction is illegal and violative of Article 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India. It has further been submitted that while giving promotion from Grade II to Grade III wrong 'Grade Pay has been fixed as Rs. 4600 instead of Rs. 4800/-, which has caused recurring loss to the petitioner.
(3.) As against this, learned counsel for the respondents-State submitted that initially the petitioner was wrongly granted promotion vide memo dated 26.02.2004 from Grade-II to Grade III by the then D.S.E, Hazaribagh vide letter dated w.e.f 07.10.1993, which was later on rectified vide revised memo dated 03.04.2001 w.e.f 07.10.1995. In this regard, it has been submitted that as per Bihar (now Jharkhand) Taken Over Elementary Schools Teachers Promotion Rules, 1993 only 20 % of the post from teachers working in Grade-II pay-scale were to be given promotion in Grade III but contrary to this Rule, the then D.S.E. mistakenly given 100% promotion to the teachers working in Grade II pay-scale. However, coming to the knowledge of this aspect, the entire promotion granted to Grade II had been cancelled vide memo dated 28.12.2005 and it was ordered to recover the said amount from the concerned teachers in view of the wrong promotion. It has been submitted that after preparation of seniority list for promotion from Grade II to Grade III, the petitioner has been granted promotion vide letter dated 04.08.2009 and accordingly her pay has been fixed. For the reasons aforesaid, Rs. 32,169/- was recoverable against the petitioner, out of which Rs. 19,820/- has been recovered and Rs. 12,349/- was to be recovered.;