IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12265 of 2004 Joydeb Chattopadhyay, Head Clerk-cum-Compto Meter, Electric Supply Division, Patna City, aged about 54 years, son of Late Rishikesh Chattopadhyay, resident of Moh. Chitragupta Marg, P.O.Jakkanpur, District Patna Petitioner Versus 1. Bihar State Electricity Board through its Secretary, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 2. General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, Patna Electric Supply Undertaking, Mangles Road, Patna. 3. Electrical Superintending Engineer, Patna Electric Supply Undertaking Circle (East), Patna, Mangles Road, Patna. 4. Electrical Executive Engineer, Electric Supply Division, P.E.S.U.,Mittal Ghat, Patna City, District Patna. Respondents. ------------ Advocate for the Petitioner: 1. Shri R.K.Sinha, Advocate 2. Shri Nilesh Kumar Nirala, Advocate Advocate of B.S.E.B. : Shri Dhananjay Mishra, Advocate. ------------ 9. 30.06.2011 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that recovery has wrongly been made from arrears of his salary which is contrary to the principle laid down in various decisions of the Supreme Court as well as of this Court. He refers to the Apex Court’s decision reported in 2009 (2) PLJR 74 SC in the case of Syed Abdul Qadir & ors. Vrs. The State of Bihar and ors., wherein it has been laid down as a principle that relief against recovery is granted by courts not because of any right in the employee, but in equity, exercising judicial discretion to relieve the employees from the hardship that will be caused if recovery is ordered. Reliance is also placed on a Division Bench decision of this Court dated 19.5.1998 in CWJC No.1007 of 1997 as also a Single Bench decision dated 21.7.2009 in CWJC No.12181 of 2003 wherein on similar facts relief was granted by this Court to the petitioners against recovery being made. Learned Counsel for the respondents has sought to make a distinction between recoveries from retiral benefits after the service period of an employee whereas the instant case involves recovery during the service period of the petitioner. This Court is of the opinion that on principle of equity the aforesaid distinction may not be of much relevance. This view is supported by the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Single Bench dated 21.7.2009 in CWJC No.12181 of 2003. In the above view of the matter it appears that the recovery of Rs.69,787/- (Rupees sixty nine thousand seven hundred and eighty seven) only has wrongly been made from the petitioner which shall be refunded within a period of four months hereof. This petition is accordingly disposed of. psc ( Vikash Jain, J. )