- (1.) THIS appeal has been filed against the order dated 5.8.2008 passed in W.P (S) No.6572/2007, by which the learned Single Judge had been pleased to allow the writ petition holding therein that the respondent/appellant State should pay the promotional benefit of the second upgraded scale of A.C.P to the petitioner immediately after receipt of confirmation from the Finance Department along with all arrears which accrued from the date when the promotion was granted to him till the date of payment together with interest @ 6% per annum since delay in payment has not been occasioned on account of any lapse on the part of the petitioner.
(2.) AFTER hearing the counsel for the appellant -State, we find no substance in this appeal as a sum of Rs.69,335/ - had been deducted from the retiral benefits/dues of the petitioner/respondent and he had also been denied promotional pay in the scale of pay of Rs.5500 -9000/ -, which was contrary to the Full Bench decision of this Court delivered in the case of State of Jharkhand V/s. Padmalochan Kalindi reported in (2007) 4 JLJR 451, wherein it was held that no amount could be recovered from the pension and retiral benefits of the retired employee because no order was passed under rule 43(b) of the Bihar/Jharkhand Pension Rules, 1950, nor the competent authority had initiated any proceeding under rule 43(b) of the said Rules. It had also been held therein that the recovery of excess payment, which was sought to be made, was without even serving notice to the retired employee, nor any opportunity of hearing was granted to explain as to why the amount should not be recovered, which was considered to be in utter violation of the principles of natural justice and it was further held therein that the respondent -State was not competent to proceed for recovery of any amount on the plea of excess payment. Learned Single Judge, relying on the principle laid down in the Full Bench decision in the case of Padmalochan Kalindi (supra), held that recovery of a sum of Rs.69,335/ - from the retiral dues of the petitioner/respondent by the appellants was illegal. The respondent -appellants, therefore, were directed to refund the total amount of Rs.69,335/ - to the petitioner -respondent, which had been illegally deducted from his retiral dues.
(3.) SO far, nothing has been brought to our notice by the counsel for the parties that the view taken by the Full Bench decision (supra) has been reversed by any Court.;