The main legal point established in the judgment is the obligation to declare and deduct pension for reemployed pensioners, as stipulated in the Jharkhand Pension Rules, and the authority's power to reduce pay and allowances by the amount of pension.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, State and R.I.M.S.

2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking quashing of letter dated 3rd November, 2011, Annexure5 bearing no. 7753 issued by Director, Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences(R.I.M.S.), Ranchi, whereunder he has been directed to refund a sum of Rs. 8,12,937.00, as it was drawn in excess by the petitioner in his capacity as Director, R.I.M.S when he was engaged on contractual basis under advertisement dated 30th October, 2005, Annexure1 and appointment letter issued thereunder, Annexure-2 dated 25th February, 2006.

3. I. A. No. 1824 of 2014 has been filed for challenging the certificate case no. 22 (Misc)/1314 initiated under the Bihar & Orissa (now Jharkhand) Recovery Act, 1914 for recovery of the amount of Rs. 8,12,937.00. The proposed amendment deserves to be allowed as by the instant certificate case the said amount is being sought to be recovered in consequence of the order of recovery challenged in the main writ application. Let it be treated as a part of the record.

4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the Advertisement at Annexure-1 to submit that there were no stipulations contained therein that the amount of pension which he was drawing as defence personnel, after superannuation from the Air Force was to be deducted from the total pay + allowances admissible on the said post of Director, R.I.M.S. pursuant to his appointment. It is submitted that the rules of the game cannot be changed after selection and appointment has been made. It is further submitted that these payments have been duly authorized by the authorities of the State. There are no overriding conditions under the appointment order to that effect. Further it has been argued that the mode of recovery through a certificate proceeding is unknown in a case of such alleged excess payment drawn in service under the Respondent State or its instrumentalities. He has relied upon the judgment rendered by learned Single Judge of the Patna High Court in the case of Uma Shankar Pathak Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 2010 (3) PLJR 243 in support of the same.

5. Learned counsel for the Respondent R.I.M.S submits on the basis of the same Advertisement, Annexure-1 and the appointment letter, Annexure-2 to the writ petition that the said advertisement clearly stipulated at Clause-8 that all provisions of R.I.M.S. Act, 2002 / RIMS Rule, 2002 and Regulations shall be applicable and shall be followed. The same conditions were also incorporated in the appointment letter, Annexure-2 of the petitioner. The petitioner was Drawing and Disbursing Officer himself and he has drawn the total amount of salary without deducting the pension amount which he was getting as an Ex Air Force Personnel. The aforesaid act of the petitioner was noticed by the Additional Finance Commissioner, Government of Jharkhand and were found to be in clear contravention of Rules 157, 158 and 159 of the Jharkhand Pension Rules. Therefore, the impugned letter has been issued upon direction of the Respondent State for recovery of the aforesaid amount drawn in excess by the petitioner. The petitioner cannot claim unjust enrichment of any pay or allowances to which he was not legally entitled. Therefore, when the amount in question has been illegally drawn, the respondents have chosen to recover the same paid in excess through a known process of recovery i.e., through certificate proceeding .

6. Learned counsel for the Respondents State also submitted in support of the contention of the learned counsel for the RIMS that the statutory Rules governing the service condition of the employees of the State including those relating to salary, allowances etc. shall govern the service condition under which the petitioner was appointed in the RIMS as Director, in the absence of any Rules and Regulations framed in that regard by RIMS. It is submitted that RIMS has yet not framed Rules or Regulations to that eff