- (1.) IT is the case of the petitioner that he joined as Assistant Teacher on 7.5.1974 on untrained scale at Primary School, Chalna in the District of Jamtara. Thereafter on completion of the training, the petitioner was given matric trained scale. In course of time, the petitioner was given I.A trained scale under memo no. 9065 -9304 dated 19.11.1987 issued by District Superintendent of Education, Sahibganj with effect from 1.4.1981 and was drawing salary on the said scale but when the petitioner was transferred from the district of Pakur to Sahibganj, District Superintendent of Education, Pakur wrote a letter to the District Education Officer, Sahibganj stating therein that the petitioner on account of being paid salary on I.A. trained scale with effect from 1.4.1981 wrongly has drawn in excess to the extent of Rs.3,06,913/ -which was sought to be recovered, which order according to learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is quite illegal as the petitioner was never given scale of I.A. trained with effect from 1.4.1981 on the misrepresentation of the petitioner as the scale was given by the authority on his own and not on account of any misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner and as such, the order of recovery of the said amount at the fag end of his career is illegal and that apart, petitioner was not paid salary since June, 2006.
(2.) IT be stated that during the pendency of this writ petition, petitioner died and as such widow of the petitioner has been substituted and in this situation it was submitted that the same cannot be recovered from the heir of the deceased employee. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the District Superintendent of Education, Sahibganj, respondent no.4 stating therein that the then District Superintendent of Education, Sahibganj without complying the procedure of promotion and without obtaining any permission from the Finance Department of the Government had illegally granted promotion on the I.A. trained scale to the petitioner and others which the petitioner was not entitled to get, in view of the provision as contained in Rule 58 of the Jharkhand Service Code read with Financial Rule 74 and as such, the amount which has been drawn in excess under the illegal order is recoverable.
(3.) HAVING heard learned counsel appearing for the parities and taking into consideration the statement made in the writ petition as also in the counter affidavit, it does appear that the petitioner was given I.A trained scale by the then District Superintendent of Education, Sahibganj without there being any misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner and the petitioner went on drawing salary on the said scale but at the fag end of the career of the petitioner, the authority came forward with the case that the petitioner has drawn salary in excess on the basis of I.A. trained scale which had wrongly been given to him but in spite of that, the authorities are not entitled to recover the amount said to have been drawn in excess in view of the ratio laid down in a case of Sahib Ram Vs. State of Haryana and others [ 1995 Supp. (1) SCC 18] wherein the Honble apex Court has held as under: " Admittedly the appellant does not possess the required educational qualifications. Under the circumstances the appellant would not be entitled to the relaxation. Since the date of relaxation the appellant had been paid his salary on the revised scale. However, it is not on account of any misrepresentation made by the appellant that the benefit of the higher pay scale was given to him but by wrong construction made by the Principal for which the appellant cannot be held to be at fault. Under the circumstances the amount paid till date may not be recovered from the appellant. The principle of equal pay for equal work would not apply to the scales prescribed by the University Grants Commission. The appeal is allowed partly without any order as to costs.  ;