IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12659 of 2003 SHAMBHU SHARAN PRASAD, retired Office Superintendent, aged about 62 years approximately, son of Late Deonath Sahay, resident of East Kalibari, Mohalla- Samir Takiya Road, P.O.-Gaya, District-Gaya. .. .. Petitioner Versus 1. BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, through its Secretary, Vidyut Bhawan Bailey Road, Patna. 2. Financial Controller 1, B.S.E.B., Bailey Road, Patna. 3. General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, Magadh Area Electricity Board, Katari Road, Gaya. 4. Electrical Superintending Engineer, Gaya, Electrical Circle, Katari Road, Gaya. 5. Electrical Executive Engineer, Electricity Supply Division, Gaya, East Church Road, Gaya.. .. Respondents ----------- For the Petitioner : M/s Narendra Kumar Jha & Nilesh Kumar Nirala, Advocates For the Bihar State Electricity Board : M/s Vinay Kirti Singh & Vijay Kumar Verma, Advocates ------------ 06/ 25-10-2010 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner superannuated while serving as Office Superintendent in the Gaya Circle of the Bihar State Electricity Board with effect from 31st January, 2002. He has filed this writ petition assailing the order bearing Memo no.1396 dated 21-06-2002 (Annexure-1) passed by the Financial Controller directing the Deputy Director of Accounts to recover a sum of Rs.1,17,043.70 paise from his DCR gratuity as the said amount was paid to the petitioner in excess of pay admissible to him. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that such excess payment of salary to the petitioner was on account of mistake committed by the authorities of the Board and petitioner is not responsible for such payment as he never misrepresented before the 2 authorities of the Board for such higher payment of salary. It is further submitted that if the authorities had to recover the amount of higher salary paid on account of mistake, they ought to have taken step for such recovery while petitioner remained in service. After retirement of the petitioner on 31-01-2002 it shall be very harsh if the said amount is recovered from D.C.R. gratuity. In this connection learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Syed Abdul Quadir & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 2009(2) PLJR 74 (SC) and submits that excess payment of salary made on account of mistake by the authorities should not be recovered from the retrial dues of the service holder after his retirement. From the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Board it does not appear that petitioner made any representation before the authorities of the Board for payment of higher salary. Learned counsel for the Board however submitted that petitioner superannuated while serving as Office Superintendent and was instrumental in suppressing the matter. Petitioner did not make any misrepresentation for drawing higher salary than the salary which was admissible. In my opinion, therefore, his case is covered by the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Syed Abdul Quadir (supra). Petitioner being not responsible for any misrepresentation in connection with the payment of the amount which is sought to be recovered from his D.C.R. gratuity under the impugned order which is accordingly quashed. As the impugned order directing recovery has been 3 quashed, the competent authority should release the payment as early as possible in any case within two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. This writ application is accordingly allowed. A.H./ ( V. N. Sinha, J. )