Jharkhand High Court
Nakul Raut vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors. on 10 September, 2001
Author: S.J. Mukhopadhaya
Bench: S.J. Mukhopadhaya
ORDER
The Court
1. This application was preferred by petitioner against the order contained in Memo No. 403 dated 5.5.2000 whereby and whereunder the pension of petitioner was fixed at lower stage of Rs. 6950/- per month instead of Rs. 7700/- as was approved by the District Accounts Officer on 25.2.2000. The other order issued by the D.S.E., Deoghar vide Memo No. 532 dated 10.2.2001 was also challenged by which the headmaster of the school was directed to prepare recovery chart of excess amount as was paid in favour of petitioner since 1.4.1989.
2. The petitioner alleged mala fide against Sri Arjun Mahto, clerk of D.S.E. Office, Deoghar, apart from arbitrary action alleged on the part of D.S.E., Deoghar.
3. In pursuance of the Court's order, the D.S.E. Deoghar, namely, Smt. Nirmala Kumari Barlia and Sri Arjun Mahto, clerk were present in Court on 8.8.2001 and informed the court that they will look into the matter and if necessary, will issue appropriate order.
4. In the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of D.S.E., Deoghar, it is alleged that the, pension of petitioner was wrongly fixed Rs. 7700/- and subsequently, a letter has been sent to the Accountant General, Bihar to the effect that the Senior Selection Grade was wrongly granted to the petitioner though he was not entitled and thereby the petitioner wrongly drawn last salary of Rs. 7700/- in place of Rs. 6900/-.
5. It is stated that by Memo No. 205 dated 20.8.2001 the respondents have written to the Accountant General. Bihar for fixation of pension on the basis of last pay drawn at Rs. 7700/- with request to forward the P.P.O. and G.P.O. taking into consideration the last pay of Rs. 7700/- as was drawn by the petitioner. The copy of letter No. 205 dated 20.8.2001 has been enclosed by the respondents.
6. Admittedly, the petitioner retired from the services of the State on 31.1.1999. He was granted promotion to senior selection grade while he was in service. After retirement and more than three years from the date of promotion, now it is not open to the respondents to raise the question of legality and propriety of promotion as was granted in favour of petitioner while he was in service. Even if such order is recalled, the respondents cannot recover any amount from the petitioner, nor can lower down the last pay actually drawn by him. In the aforesaid background, if the respondents of their own have requested the Accountant General to fix the pension and gratuity on the basis of last pay actually drawn by petitioner i.e. Rs. 7700/-, the Accountant General, Bihar should fix the same accordingly and should issue appropriate payment order in favour of petitioner immediately but not later than a period of one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.
7. It may be mentioned that the respondents cannot reopen the issue relating to legality and propriety of order of promotion to selection grade as was allowed to petitioner while he was in service at this belated stage, nor can recover any amount, there being no proceeding under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules having initiated.
8. The writ petition stands disposed of, with the aforesaid observations/directions.
9. Writ petition disposed of.