Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and JC to G P-III appearing on behalf of the respondents and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this application is taken up for disposal at the stage of admission itself.

2. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 15.2.2008 (Annexure-4) passed by the respondent no. 3 as also the order dated 27.5.2005 (Annexure-1) whereby the respondents have recovered a sum of Rs. 90,000/- (rupees ninety thousand) from the retiral benefits of the petitioner and have also directed him to pay Rs. 13,325/- by way of challan. Besides praying for quashing the aforesaid two orders, the petitioner has also prayed for issuance of a direction to the respondents to refund the amount forthwith and also to pay him consequential benefits including pension on the scale of pay last drawn by him at the time of his retirement.

3. Facts of the case of the petitioner, in brief, are that he joined on the post of Assistant in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, on 18.5.1966. After having served for 38 years, he superannuated from service on 31.5.2004 on the post of Head Assistant on the scale of Rs. 5500-9000/- after being granted promotion under the second ACP. Post retirement, he demanded his retiral benefits , but by the impugned letter dated 27.5.2007, he was informed that a sum of Rs. 90,000/- (rupees ninety thousand) was recovered from his retiral benefits and he was also directed to pay a sum of Rs. 13,325/- by way of challan, on the ground that the aforesaid amount was excess payment received by him. He filed a representation on 4.1.2008 before the concerned authority of the respondents taking support of the judgment passed by the Full Bench of this Court in LPA No. 146 of 2006, demanding payment of his entire retiral benefits. In response to his representation dated 4.1.2008, he was informed through the impugned letter of the respondent dated 15.2.2008 (Anhexure4) that the amount being excess payment received by him, was recovered from his retiral benefits.

4 Assailing the impugned order, Sri A. Sen, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned orders having been passed long after the petitioner's retirement and that too without serving any show cause notice nor giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner against the proposed recovery and even without conducting any enquiry under the provisions of Rule 43(b) of the Bihar/Jharkhand Pension Rules, the same is illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice and cannot be allowed. Referring to the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Laxman Prasad Gupta vs. State of Jhakhand [2007(4) JLJR 459(FB)] and the case of Smt. Normi Topno vs. State of Jhakhand [2008(1) JCR 381 (Jhr.)] [: 2007(4) JLJR 466(FB)], learned counsel argues that an identical issue has been decided by the Full Bench of this Court in the aforesaid two cases in which it was categorically held that without taking recourse to the provisions of Section 43(b) of the Bihar/Jharkhand Pension Rules, no amount can be recovered from the retiral benefits of a retired employee.

5 The respondents in their counter affidavit have denied and disputed the claim of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the salary of the State Government employees were revised with effect from 1.1.1996 pursuant to the notification issued by the Finance Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna dated 8.2.1999. The notification had also specified Department-wise and Post-wise pay scales in Schedule-III of the Resolution. As per paragraph-II of the Resolution, the State Government had decided to abolish the scheme of time bound promotions and selection grades with effect from 1.1.1996.

The revised pay scale of an Assistant/Clerk as mentioned in Schedule-III of the resolution was fixed at Rs. 4,000-100-6,000/-. As against this, the petitioner who was admittedly employed as a Clerk, his pay was wrongly fixed in the