(Sneha Mayee Banerjee vs . The State Of Jharkhand & Ors.)
2024 Latest Caselaw 344 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

(Sneha Mayee Banerjee vs . The State Of Jharkhand & Ors.) on 12 January, 2024

Author: S. N. Pathak

Bench: S.N. Pathak

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                        W.P.(S). No. 5176 of 2012
         (Sneha Mayee Banerjee Vs. the State of Jharkhand & Ors.)
                                  With
                        W.P.(S). No. 5644 of 2009
          (Snehamayee Banerjee Vs. the State of Jharkhand & Ors.)
                                ------

CORAM : HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N. PATHAK For the Petitioner : Mr. Shivam U. Sahay, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. A.K. Dubey, AC to GP-III Ms. Moushmi Chatterjee, AC to GA-V Mr. Sudarshan Shrivastava, Advocate

------

08/ 12.01.2024 Heard the parties.

It has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that right from 1993, basic pay of Rs.2375, which the petitioner was getting, was accepted by the respondent-authorities and the same was duly approved by the Director, Secondary Education, Human Resources Development Department and the petitioner continued to draw the said pay till the date of his superannuation. It is only after his retirement, at the time of fixation of pension, objection has been raised by the respondent-Accountant General and consequently, his pension was fixed on a reduced pay-scale which is not tenable in the eyes of law, since the Accountant General has no authority to raise any objection regarding pay-fixation of the petitioner.

In support of his contention, learned counsel places heavy reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Thoms Daniel Vs. State of Kerala and & Ors., reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 536.

Mr. Sudarshan Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Accountant General argued that though after retirement recovery is not permissible but rectification of wrong fixation is always permissible.

Having heard the parties, it appears that the basic pay of Rs.2375/- has been accepted by the respondents all along the service tenure of petitioner. The Accountant General is not an authority to raise objection regarding fixation of pay which has been accepted by the respondents and duly approved by the highest authority i.e. the Director, Secondary Education. It is only after retirement this objection has been raised.

However, since counter-affidavit has not been filed, respondents are at liberty to file the same.

Since the matters are of the years 2009 & 2012, put-up these cases after two weeks.

(Dr. S. N. Pathak, J.) kunal