Recovery from Class III employees for unproductive expenses is impermissible in law, as established in State of Punjab and others Vs. Rafique Masih (White Washer) (2015(1) PLJR(SC) 261).

In all the aforesaid writ petitions, since same relief was sought for, all the writ petitions were heard together and order was reserved.

2. In all the writ petitions, petitioners were initially appointed as Assistant Teacher on compassionate ground, as per recommendation made by District Compassionate Committee, Madhubani. Petitioners have prayed for quashing of order dated 20-04-2011 passed by the District Superintendent of Education, Madhubani by different memo nos. By the said order, the District Superintendent of Education has directed to recover the excess paid amount to the petitioners, which was to be recovered at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per month from their salary. In respect of some of petitioners, recovery to the extent of Rs. 20,000/- was made, however; in some cases, recovery could not be made. The detail of the cases will be indicated hereinafter.

3. In the 1st case i.e. C.W.J.C. No. 15885 of 2011 (Anil Kumar vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.), since counter affidavit was filed on behalf of respondents, same was taken as lead case.

4. Short fact of the case in C.W.J.C. No. 15885 of 2011 is that the District Compassionate Committee, Madhubani recommended for appointing the petitioner on compassionate ground as Assistant Teacher. Accordingly, the District Education Establishment Committee, Madhubani, in its meeting held on 27-11-2001, decided to appoint the petitioner as Assistant Teacher. Subsequently, the District Superintendent of Education, Madhubani, vide letter no. 4074 dated 27-11-2001, appointed the petitioner as Assistant Teacher, who joined on 03-12-2001. The petitioner thereafter was sent for training during his service period and finally, he was relieved by the Principal of Primary Teachers Training College at Narar, Madhubani after completion of training for giving joining in his school i.e. Primary School, Sarokha, Babu Barhi, Madhubani, vide Memo dated 18-04-2007. It is case of the petitioner that he was given revised pay-scale as Rs. 4500-125- 7000/- which was fixed on 01-01-2006. The petitioner for a long period was not allowed to do his primary work of teaching, however; other work was taken by the respondents. In the meanwhile, some objections were raised by the Auditor of the office of Accountant General, Bihar. Thereafter, it was considered by the Public Account Committee and thereafter, vide order contained in letter no. 578 dated 22-06-2006, the Director, Primary Education directed to recover the amount paid in terms of salary to such teachers, who remained out of teaching work and did not perform duty of teaching. The petitioner was noticed and finally, vide order dated 18-08-2006, it was directed to recover from the salary of the petitioner as well as other similarly situated persons in installment of Rs. 2000/- per month on the plea of adjustment of unproductive expenses, in view of audit object of Accountant General, Bihar. The said order was challenged before this Court, vide C.W.J.C. No. 12086 of 2006. In the said writ petition, an interim order was passed on 18-05-2007, whereby order of recovery was directed to be stayed. The said writ petition was finally disposed of granting permission to petitioners to file representation before the District Superintendent of Education, Madhubani. The relevant portion of the order dated 11-07-2007 in C.W.J.C. No. 12086 of 2006 is as follows:-

“In view of the above, the petitioners are permitted to file fresh representation before the District Superintendent of Education, Madhubani, respondent no. 6, within a period of six weeks along with the copy of the relevant documents in support of the claim as well as the certified copy of this order.

Upon receipt of such representation, the respondent no. 6 shall consider and dispose of the same by a reasoned order in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months on receipt of