IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16241 of 2009 1. UPENDRA PRASAD KAPAR S/O LATE LAXMINAGAR, R/O MOH-RING BANDH, LAXAMANGAR, NEAR SHIV TEMPLE, SITAMARHI, P.S- DADAR DISTT- SITAMARHI Versus 1. THE BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN VIDYUT BHAWAN (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS ELECTRICITY BOARD PATNA-1 2. THE CHAIRMAN, BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, PATNA 3. THE SECRETARY, BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, PATNA, VIDYUT BHAWAN, PATNA 4. THE JOINT SECRETARY, BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VIDYUT BHAWAN, PATNA 5. THE FINANCE CONTROLLER, BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VIDYUT BHAWAN, PATNA 6. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF ACCOUNTS (SACTT.) BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VIDYUT BHAWAN, PATNA 7. THE DIRECTOR (TERMINAL BENEFITS) BIHAR ELECTRICITY BOARD, VIDYUT BHAWAN, PATNA 8. THE ELECTRICAL EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, SUPPLY DIVISION, SITAMARHI ----------- 04. 08.02.2010 A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent – Board. Heard the parties. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order contained in Memo No. PEN 368/08/1169 dated 19.11.2008 (Annexure-3) issued by the respondent no. 6 whereby an amount of Rs. 69, 440.10, was directed to be recovered from the gratuity of the petitioner allegedly due to the excess payment of salary even though did not pass the Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination. It is however, submitted that no sooner petitioner received such instruction for passing the examination of Hindi 2 Noting and Drafting Examination, he appeared and passed out the said examination. Moreover, the payment which is alleged to have been made by the respondent – Board in excess is not due to any fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondent – Board submits that petitioner was not entitled to receive that excess amount as the same was rightly recovered from the gratuity amount. In the above circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for expeditious disposal of his claims as raised in his representation petitioner proposes to represent before the Secretary of the respondent – Board stating his grievance that no amount can be recovered from him in absence of any misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner. In that view of the mater, in case such representation is filed within a period of two weeks alongwith necessary documents in support of such grievance the representation of the petitioner shall be considered in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within a period of four months on receipt of such representation so that the grievance of the petitioner could be settled without further delay. However, if the representation of the petitioner 3 is accepted, respondent no. 3 shall soon thereafter issue necessary orders so that the amount which has been recovered be refunded back. The writ application is disposed of with the above observations/directions. Jagdish ( Shailesh Kumar Sinha, J.)