- (1.) HEARD counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE petitioner in this writ application, has prayed tor a direction on the respondents to pay the petitioner his retiral benefits including his pension, the amounl of provident fund, difference of pay payable to him alongwith interest under various Heads and, also for quashing the letter dated 14.3.2002 (Annexure -4) issued by the office of the Accountant General (A&E)) -II, Bihar and Jharkhand, Patna, whereby a direction was issued to the District Superintendent of Education, Garhwa to deduct certain amount from the petitioner's retiral benefits on the ground that excess payment was made to him. A further prayer has been made for quashing the letter dated 7.1.2004 (Annexure -6) issued by the District Superintendent of Education, Garhwa (Respondent No. 2), whereby the petitioner has been directed to deposit the excess amount paid to him purportedly on account of wrong fixation of his salary made in the year 1986. Counsel for the petitioner acknowledges that the retiral benefits have been paid to the petitioner, though after delay of two years and that too, without recovery of any excess amount from his accumulated retiral benefits. Learned counsel however submits that though the petitioner was entitled to annual increments from the period specified, but he was not given such benefit thereof. Learned counsel submits further that the petitioner is also entitled to the grant of second ACP and consequential monetary benefits thereof, but he was not given any such benefit. Learned counsel adds further that the impugned letters whereby certain amount have been sought to be recovered from the petitioner, are illegal and cannot sustain in law as because, such orders have been passed admittedly after the retirement of the petitioner and that too, without issuing any prior notice to the petitioner to explain as to why recovery should not be made from him and on the further ground that the order has been passed without initiating any proceeding in terms of the Rule 43(b) of the Pension Rules.
(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents in which the respondents have sought to explain that the entire admissible dues which were payable to the petitioner, were duly assessed under the various Heads and have been paid to him and the amount of provident fund has also been paid together with interest accrued thereon. As regards the petitioner 'sgrievance against the impugned orders purporting to recover some excess amount from the petitioner's retiral benefits, the stand taken by the respondent State is that such direction having been issued by the office of the Accountant General, the respondent State is bound to abide by the same.;