IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16566 of 2011 1. Sita Ram Singh S/O Late Biru Singh R/O Village- Onda, P.S.- Asthawan, District- Nalanda Versus 1. The Bihar State Electricity Board through its Chairman, Vidyut Bhawan, Patna (Hereinafter Referred to as Electricity Board) 2. The Chairman, Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Patna 3. The General Manager-Cum-Chief Engineer, Tirhut Area Electricity Board, Muzaffarpur 4. The Electrical Superintending Engineer, Muzaffarpur Electrical Circle, Muzaffarpur 5. The Deputy Director, Personnel, Tirhut Area Electricity Board, Muzaffarpur 6. The Electrical Executive Engineer, Urban Electric Supply Division, Muzaffarpur 7. The Electrical Executive Engineer, Electric Supply Division, Sitamarhi 8. The Deputy Director, Accounts, Tirhut Area Electricity Board, Muzaffarpur ---------------------------------- 05. 22.12.2011 Annexrue-10 is the speaking order which has been passed by the respondent Board on the basis of an earlier direction issued by the High Court, contained in Annexure-8. The cause of grievance for the petitioner arose when the respondent authorities decided to re-fix his pension and pay-scale after retirement on the ground that the petitioner has been given a wrong increment of Rs.165/- which added up to a higher pay-scale and payment to which petitioner was not entitled to. That was the background under which earlier writ, contained in Annexure-8, came to be filed and the Court directed the respondents to decide the issue by a speaking order. Speaking order is Annexure-10. Submission of the learned counsel representing the petitioner is that since such an order has been passed after retirement 2 without any notice or opportunity given to the petitioner, therefore, the order should be quashed and the status quo in terms of such grant ought to be maintained by disallowing re-fixation of pay-scale and pension. Such a submission of the counsel could have merited submission in the entirety provided there was no clear direction by the High Court to decide the matter by the respondents by passing a speaking order. In the opinion of the Court the issue was left open for the authorities to justify the reason for embarking on such an exercise against the petitioner, may be after his retirement, since finally issue as to his entitlement etc. was not yet settled over the period of time. The contention of the counsel that the respondents do not have freedom to re-look into the pay fixation and the pension when it was calculated, has to be accepted with certain reservation on this count because it is not a case where a settled issue long after retirement is sought to be re-opened. The issue was still alive and it was during the course of such verification that anomaly of an extra increment relating to the year 1999 – 2000 emerged as petitioner had been granted one increment on 30.6.1999 as well as yet another increment on 1.8.1999. No employee is entitled to two increments in a year, which is not disputed. The Court has gone through the speaking order. The error is limited to grant of additional increment to the petitioner after pay revision which has been extended to him under the time bound kind of senior selection grade as well as fixation of pension of the 3 substantive promotion as he head line man. Since the error of grant of additional increment of Rs.165/- is apparent on the face of record , therefore, the Court is not inclined to interfere with re-fixation of the pay-scale of the petitioner and the corresponding pension which is to be re-worked on the basis of last pay drawn. However, since the petitioner who is a low paid employee has already superannuated and the payment had already accrued to him, it will be harsh to compel the petitioner to refund the amount which any way does not add up to anything substantive or substantial. There is judgment to support the stand of the petitioner which was the case of Mundrika Devi vs. Bihar State Electricity Board and others (LPA No.1241 of 2002). The stand of the counsel for the Electricity Board is that since all this exercise has been done after the retirement of the petitioner and not a case of an action taken against him after many many years, even the recovery part should be permitted. With the plethora of decisions in support of the petitioner on this count, the Court is not inclined to accept such line of submission. In totality therefore, the recovery part is quashed. If any recovery is made, same will be refunded to the petitioner but the re- fixation of the pay scale and corresponding revision of the pension will be permitted to be carried out. Writ is allowed to the extent indicated above. rkp ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)