IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1364 of 2005 BHULA BHAI SRIVASTAVA son of Late Jagdish Narayan Shrivastava, resident of village Nandpur, P.O.- Nandpur, P.S.- Manjhi, District- Saran (Chapra) Versus 1.THE BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD through its Chairman, Electricity Board, Bailey Road, Patna 2.The Chairman, Bihar State Electricity Board, Bailey Road, Patna 3.The Finance Controller, Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna 4.The Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna 5.The Director of Accounts, Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna 6.The General Manager, Tirhut Area Electricity Board, Muzaffarpur 7.The Electrical Superintending Engineer, Electricity Supply Circle, Chapra. ----------- 6 30.04.2009 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner and the respondent-Board. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that all the retiral dues of the petitioner have been paid during the pendency of the writ application, however a sum of Rs. 1,47,778/- was recovered from the death-cum- retirement gratuity payable to the petitioner. It is further submitted that the aforesaid amount was paid by way of twelve per cent promotional benefit. Besides the above on account of re-fixation of pay scales which reduced the emoluments of the petitioner. The petitioner relying upon the standing order no. 125/EB dated 7th of May, 1983 as contained in Annexure-5 submitted that the petitioner was rightly given promotional benefit of 12 per cent which relate to correct fixation of pay scale, and as such, the amount which has been recovered was illegal and not - 2 - permissible. Learned counsel for the respondent-Board, on the other hand, submits that the amount recovered was on account of double fixation of pay. Relying upon the submission made in paragraph 4(i) & (ii) the amount paid to the petitioner i.e. Rs. 1,47,748/- was not payable and as such it was recovered from the death-cum-retirement gratuity of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner in reply submits that notwithstanding the fact that the amount was payable to the petitioner, however even if that amount was not payable the aforesaid amount paid to the petitioner was not on account of any misrepresentation or furnishing any misleading informant to the Board, and as such, no fault can be attributed against the petitioner for making the payment of the said amount, and therefore, aforesaid amount can not be recovered from the retiral dues of the petitioner. Considering the submissions of the parties, the question whether the petitioner had misrepresented or had furnished any misleading information are the matters of record to be verified. Accordingly, the Court permits the petitioner to represent before respondent no.4 for redressal of the grievance with regard to the amount recovered from the gratuity as also the wrong - 3 - fixation of pension. In case such representation is filed by the petitioner along with relevant details and supporting materials, if any, within a period four weeks from today as also the certified copy of the present order, the respondent no.4 shall get it examined by the competent authority of the Board and on receipt of the report on such examination of the claims of the petitioner, he shall consider the representation of the petitioner and dispose it of by a reasoned order in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within a period of four months on receipt of such representation. Upon consideration, if the representation is disposed of in favour of the petitioner and it is found that the aforesaid amount recovered from the death-cum-retirement gratuity was not recoverable, the above respondent shall immediately direct for refund of the aforesaid amount within one month thereafter and further direct for re-fixation of pension. The writ application is disposed of with the above observations/directions. Manish/- ( Shailesh Kumar Sinha,J.)