IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8476 of 2004 Tarkeshwar Nath Verma Son of late Bhola Prasad, resident of Mohalla- Ram Krishna Nagar, New Colony Satpura, Near Pokharia Pir, P.S. Muzaffarpur , District- Muzaffarpur. Versus 1. The Chairman, Bihar State Electricity Board, Baily Road, Patna. 2. The Bihar State Electricity Board through the Secretary, Baily Road, Patna. 3. The General Manager cum the Chief Engineer, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur. 4. The Superintending Engineer, Bihar State Electricity Board, Transmission Circle, Muzaffarpur. 5. The Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board, Baily Road, Patna. 6. The Director of Accounts, Bihar State Electricity Board, Baily Road, Patna. 7. The Deputy Director of Accounts, Bihar State Electricity Board, Baily Road, Patna. 8. The Finance Controller, Bihar State Electricity Board, Baily Road Patna. 9. The Account Officer, Transmission Circle, Muzaffarpur. For the Petitioner : M/s Satish Kumar Agrawal & Arvind Kumar Verma, Advocates For the Board : M/s Vinay Kirti Singh & Vijay Kumar Verma, Advocates 05/ 15.09.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the Bihar State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board). 2. Petitioner superannuated while serving as Account Assistant in the Board with effect from 31.1.2004. He is aggrieved by the contents of the letter, bearing Memo No. 485 dated 31.3.2004, Annexure-1, whereunder 43,484.04 has been directed to be recovered from him on - 2 - account of higher salary paid to him for the period between 1977-78 till 5.1.1999. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that higher salary was not paid to him on account of any misrepresentation made by him. In the circumstances, direction to recover the amount issued under memo no. 485 dated 31.3.2004, Annexure-1 is wholly unjustified in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of the Syed Abdul Qadir & Ors. Vrs. State of Bihar & Ors., reported in 2009(2) PLJR 74(SC). 4. Counsel for the Board, however, states that recovery was made from the petitioner in the light of the order dated 5.1.1999, Annexure-2 by deducting instalments from the salary payable to him every month and the recovery was complete prior to his retirement. 5. Counsel for the petitioner disputes such fact and states that recovery has been made after his retirement i.e. 31.1.2004. 6. Having heard counsel for the parties, I direct that in case the recovery of 43, 484.04 has been made from the terminal dues of the petitioner after his retirement then the - 3 - same be refunded to him within three months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order before the Accounts Officer, Transmission Circle, Muzaffarpur, but it is made clear that if the amount of 43,484.04 was recovered from the petitioner prior to his superannuation i.e. 31.1.2004, such amount need not be refunded to the petitioner. 7. The writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. Arjun/ (V.N. Sinha, J.)