1. Petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to make his following retiral dues along with appropriate interest-(1) The amount of Group Insurance (2) Two A.C.P’s with effect from 8.9.1999 and 6.12.04 (3) Sanctioned dues amount of 16 months salary for the period from 11.8.08 to 16.9.08 and 11.9.08 to 17.12.2009 (4) Arrears of differences of salary since 01.01.2006 in the light of 6th Pay Revision Committee Report.

2. The petitioner was initially appointed on 06.12.1980 on the post of Agricultural Inspector at Japha Block, Muzaffarpur and he was superannuated from service on 31.07.2011 while he was posted at Gopalpur Block, Bhagalpur district as Block Agricultural Officer but after his retirement, nothing was paid to him though he filed a representation before the concerned officials. It is also the case of the petitioner that departmental proceeding was initiated against him and he was suspended for the period of 16 months but later on, all the charges were found false and baseless against the petitioner in departmental proceeding and, accordingly, he was exonerated from the aforesaid departmental proceeding. It is also the case of the petitioner that benefits of two A.C.P.’s have already been sanctioned by the order dated 28.05.2005 but despite the sanction order, the aforesaid benefits of the petitioner with effect from 09.08.1999 to 06.12.2004 have not been paid to him.

3. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents no. 2 to 5 and it is averred at para 7 of the counter affidavit that amount of Rs. 1,44,222/- of group insurance has already been paid to the petitioner vide Bank A/C No. 11347489392 of S.B.I., Khagaria.

4. It has also been averred at para 8 to the counter affidavit that petitioner had been paid excess benefits of A.C.P. since 16.12.1990 to 28.02.2006 and in course of verification of pay fixation, the aforesaid fact came to light and it also came to light that Rs. 81,428/- has been paid excess to the petitioner.

5. It has further been averred at paragraphs no. 9 and 10 of the counter affidavit that payment for arrears of salaries of the petitioner from the period of 17.09.2008 to 17.12.2009 except 11.08.2008 to 16.09.2008 has already been ordered and so far as from the period of 11.08.2008 to 16.09.2008 is concerned, the aforesaid payment has been stopped as between the aforesaid period, the petitioner was in jail custody and the rest amount has already been paid to the petitioner. Similarly, at para 11 to the counter affidavit, it has been averred that the payment of differential amount for the period of 01.04.2007 to July 2008 in conformity with recommendation of 6th pay commission was calculated and it came to the tune of Rs. 1,26,273/- but the excess payment of Rs. 81,428 as well as amount of Rs. 30,925/- which was paid to the petitioner provisionally, were deducted from the aforesaid amount and rest amount of Rs. 13,870/- has already been paid to the petitioner.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner admits the above stated payment but submission on behalf of the petitioner is that Rs. 81,428/- was wrongly deducted from the salary of the petitioner because according to settled principle of law, the excess payment can only be deducted when the above stated excess payment has been made on account of misrepresentation or fraud but in the instant case, it is not the case of the department that the aforesaid excess payment was made on account of misrepresentation or any fraud committed by the petitioner.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision reported in 1995 Supp.(1) SCC, 18 Sahib Ram vs. State of Haryana and Others in which it has been held by the Apex Court that excess payment can only be recovered in case of misrepresentation or fraud. Another decision cited on behalf of the petitioner is Aditya Prasad Singh vs. State of Bihar reported in 2012(4) PLJR in which a Benc