Allowed

Amit Kumar v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC24 Feb 2009CWJC/10392/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that the petitioner's appointment at a higher pay scale was an administrative error by the respondents. The Court set aside the order directing recovery from the petitioner but declined to interfere with the part reducing his pay scale.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 5.4.2002 is set aside only to the extent it directs recovery of excess pay from the petitioner.

Amit Kumar Vs the State of Bihar and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Patna HC (2009)

¶1

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
 CWJC No.10392 of 2002
 AMIT KUMAR, son of Late Kedar Prasad, resident of
Village Dumarao, PS Dumarao, District Buxar, presently
residing at Mohalla sanjay Gandhi Nagar, Road No. 6, PS
Kankarbagh, District Patna

¶2

……………………………….. Petitioner

¶3

 Versus

¶4

1. THE STATE OF BIHAR

¶5

2. Agriculture Production Commissioner, Agriculture Department, Government of Bihar, Patna

¶6

3. Director, Agriculture, Government of Bihar, Patna

¶7

4. Joint Director, Agriculture, Patna Commissionary, Patna

¶8

…………………………..Respondents
-----------

¶9

24.02.2009 Heard leaned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State.

¶10

On 26.12.2000 the petitioner was appointed on

¶11

compassionate ground on the post of Storekeeper in the pay scale of Rs. 4000-100-6000/-. He joined as such and continued

¶12

to receive pay scale till it came to be reduced by an order dated

¶13

5.4.2002 to the scale of Rs. 3050-75-3950-20-4590/-.

¶14

Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. It states that prior to the appointment of the petitioner the cadre of Lower Division Clerk and Upper Division Clerk which was unified was de-merged and in consequence of which necessary orders were issued on 20.12.2000 before the appointment of the petitioner. As a consequence of the demerger the petitioner was appointed on the cadre of Lower Division Clerk. This was an error and which has only been rectified.

¶15

The contention of the petitioner is that there were no misrepresentation on his part to warrant any recovery from him.

¶16

On facts, this Court holds that the petitioner was erroneously given higher pay scale contrary to the order of de-

¶17

merger dated 20.12.2000. The fixation of his pay scale afresh by order dated 5.4.2000 therefore requires no interference.

¶18

Considering that there has been no misrepresentation by the petitioner but that he was appointed on compassionate ground and that the error lay entirely with the respondents, there being no allegation of any collusion by him, this Court set asides the order dated 5.4.2002 only to the extent that it directs recovery from the petitioner in pursuance of the same.

¶19

The writ application is allowed only to the extent indicated on the issue of recovery only, even while this Court declines interference with that part of the order reducing the pay scale.

¶20

Snkumar/-

¶21

(Navin Sinha,J.)

Amit Kumar v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit Kumar v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bihar State Survey and Settlemen Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Suresh Prasad Singh Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Hav.Shiv Shanker Choudhary Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Varun Kumar Vs the Director,National Institut

Jawahar Ram Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Jagdeep Ram Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.