IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14203 of 2009 BALESHWAR PANDIT, SON OF RAMRUP PANDIT, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE & P.O. RAIPUR BUJURG, POLICE STATION-SARAIRANJAN, DISTRICT- SAMASTIPUR. ---PETITIONER Versus 1. THE BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN, VIDYUT BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA. 2. THE SECRETARY, BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VIDYUT BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA. 3. THE FINANCIAL CONTROLLER, BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VIDYUT BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA. 4. THE GENERAL MANAGER-CUM-CHIEF ENGINEER, TRANSMISSION ZONE, NEW PUNAICHAK, PATNA. 5. THE ELECTRICAL SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, TRANSMISSION CIRCLE, NEW PUNAICHAK, PATNA. 6. THE ELECTRICAL EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, TRANSMISSION DIVISION, KHAGAUL, BARRACK NO.6, NEW PUNAICHAK, PATNA. ---RESPONDENTS ----------- 2. 29.10.2009 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent-Board. The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned orders, contained in Annexures 1, 2 and 3, whereby the total amount to the tune of Rs.Fifty-six thousand and odd has been sought to be recovered from his pensionary benefits on account of excess payment being made to him. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the orders in question are absolutely vague as they do not disclose as to in what manner and at what relevant period of time, excess payment was 2 made to the petitioner. Besides that, it is further submitted that those orders were issued without informing the petitioner or giving an opportunity to him to explain his stands and as such, the authorities are not justified in issuing such orders of recovery. Learned counsel further submits that before issuance of the aforesaid orders, the petitioner represented his grievances by filing a representation before the General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, Transmission Zone, Patna (respondent no.4) that the pension as also the gratuity should be paid to him without making any deduction. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-Board, on the other hand, submits that the impugned orders clearly state that the excess payment was made to the petitioner due to wrong fixation of pay and as such the orders are justified. Notwithstanding the above, the deductions were made with the consent of the petitioner, which is being denied by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although the petitioner had represented the matter before issuance of the impugned orders, but for settling the grievances as raised in the writ application, the petitioner, however, proposes to file a representation before the General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, Transmission Zone, Patna (respondent no.4). In case such a representation is filed stating the grievances as raised in this writ application as also enclosing the copy of the relevant documents, if any, in support of such claims along with the certified copy of the present order within a period of two weeks, respondent no.4 shall 3 consider the grievances of the petitioner as raised in his representation and dispose it of by a reasoned order in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months on receipt of such representation. Till the disposal of the representation, no further recovery shall be made pursuant to Letter No.Pen-No.14 dated 9th of July, 2009, as contained in Annexure 3. The writ application stands disposed of with the above observations/directions. PNM (Shailesh Kumar Sinha, J.)