IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1452 of 2008 Nagendra Prasad Karna, son of late Hari Govind lal, resident of Mohalla- Rambagh Chouri, P.O.-Ramna, P.S.-Mithanpura, Town & District- Muzaffapur. ……. Petitioner. VERSUS 1. The Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna through its Chairman and Managing Director, Bihar Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 2. The General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, Electric Transmission Zone-2, Bhikhanpura, Muzaffarpur. 3 The Electrical Executive Engineer, Transmission Division, Vidyut Colony, Bhikhanpura, Muzaffarpur. 4. The Electrical Superintending Engineer (Technical) Transmission Zone-II, Muzaffarpur. 5. The Account Officer, Transmission Circle, Muzaffarpur. 6. The D.D.A. (H.Q.), Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna. ……. Respondents. ------------ Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr. Baban Roy. Counsel for the B.S.E.B. : Mr. Prakash Kumar. --------------- 02 20.02.2009 The sole petitioner died on 24.12.2008 and an interlocutory application being I.A. No. 603 of 2009 has been filed for substitution. Let wife and the two sons as mentioned in paragraph no. 2 of the interlocutory application be substituted in place of the sole petitioner. As all the three have already appeared through Vakalatnama, no notice need be issued. It is agreed at the Bar that petitioner has already vacated official quarters and as such substantial retiral dues were paid before his death. The only contentious issue that remains is that gratuity amount was sanctioned at Rs. 2,76,066/-, out of which a deduction of Rs. 2,72,667.19/- has been made, as is apparent from the office order of the General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, Transmission, Zone-II, Muzaffarpur dated 06.03.2007. It may be mentioned that the petitioner 2 retired on 31.07.2007 and as is apparent from the counter affidavit, the deduction has been made because the petitioner did not pass the departmental examination of Hindi Noting and Drafting. On the first blush, one cannot object to the stand of respondent. But on closer scrutiny, it would be found that the petitioner was appointed on 22.12.1975. The deduction has been made on the ground that not having passed the examination right from 22.12.1976 up to 02.01.2002, he was paid the excess amount, which was not due, because he had not passed the examination aforesaid. The first thing to be seen is that it is not even obliquely suggested that petitioner was either instrumental in getting the wrong pay or inducing the granting of the pay for over 30 years. The second thing is that a mistake that was departmentally committed 30 years back is now being sought to be corrected at the time of superannuation of the petitioner. The third thing is that as a consequence of mistake of the respondents themselves, virtually entire gratuity payable to the petitioner for the entire service period, has now been wiped out. Thus, on the face of it, petitioner is to pay the price of the mistake of the department. In other words, what is submitted is that for the mistake of the department, the petitioner must suffer after retirement. To this Court, this is wholly unacceptable position. Neither law nor equity justifies the same. It cannot be disputed that a right is inherent in a person to correct a mistake and that correction cannot be questioned. But what certainly can be questioned is, if that correction hurts another person or enures to the detriment of others, who was an innocent victim, then such a consequence cannot be 3 permitted. As noticed above, the consequences are too drastic so far as petitioner is concerned. That cannot be permitted. In that view of the matter, the order deducting almost the entire gratuity at this fag end of the life of the petitioner cannot be sustained. The office order, as aforesaid, is thus set aside. The respondents are directed to make payment accordingly. In this connection, I may refer to a recent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Narendra Singh (2008) 2 Supreme Court cases 750. From paragraph no. 8 of the counter affidavit, petitioner was held to be entitled to pay increment of Rs. 28,968/-. This amount would also be paid to the petitioner within 45 days of the production of a copy of this order before the Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board. With these observations and directions, the writ petition is allowed. Trivedi/ (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)