IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9101 of 2006 Mukteshwar Mishra son of Late Awadh Bihari Mishra resident of Village- Udhura P.S. Brahampur, District-Buxar ………Petitioner Versus 1. The Bihar State Electricity Board through its Chairman, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 2. Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna 3. Financial Controller, Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna 4. Joint Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 5. Dy. Director, Personnel, Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. …….Respondents ----------- 03. 04.02.2009 The petitioner is aggrieved by a deduction of Rs. 1, 45,000/- made from his gratuity. The ground is that he was given double benefit at the time of his promotion which was not permissible in view of Board’s Office order No. 515 dated 07.05.1976. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that firstly even if it be assumed that it was a mistake, it was mistake solely committed by the Board itself over twenty five years back. Petitioner had nothing to do with it. It would be highly iniquitous to permit the Board to punish the petitioner by the deduction aforesaid for a mistake committed by the Board itself. In my view, the submission is correct. The right to correct is distinct from a right to re-compensate. If - 2 - right to correct gives rise to inequities, the Court will not permit such correction. Thus the act of deducting the amount as aforesaid from the gratuity of the petitioner on his superannuation can not be sustained. However, I would also like to observe that while passing such an order the officers of the Board have conveniently forgotten to take note of the earlier general circulars and the later clarificatory circulars issued by the Board in this regard which may be noted hereunder. 1. Circular No. 4562 dated 19.11.1974 2. Circular No. 125 dated 07.05.1983 3. Clarification No. 660 dated 09.09.1983. This matter thus requires reconsideration in view of the facts as noted above and any correction would only have prospective application. The decision must be taken within two months from the time when the order is produced before the Financial Controller of the Board. With these observations and directions, this writ application is allowed. In view of the findings given above, it is submitted that the amount recovered from the gratuity of the petitioner be refunded to the petitioner forthwith. Shageer (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J)