IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16227 of 2004 NAND KISHORE PRASAD VERMA, retired Account Assistant, aged about 61 years, son of late Arjuneshwar Prasad Verma, Road No. 13, Ashok Nagar, Kankarbagh, Patna -20. …………… Petitioner Versus 1. BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD through its Secretary, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 2. Financial Controller-1, Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 3. General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, Central Area Electricity Board, 8- Surpentine Road, Patna. 4. Electrical Executive Engineer, Electric Supply Division, Main Road, Mokamah, District – Patna. 5. Joint Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. …………. Respondents ----------- For the petitioner: M/S. R K Sinha and Nilesh Kumar Nirala. For the respondents: Mr. Vijay Kumar Verma. ------ 5. 27.02.2009 Petitioner filed writ application in the year 2004 because his retiral dues had not been settled by the Electricity Board. At the time of his superannuation he was holding a post of Accountant Assistant which was on 31.1.2004. The writ application has remained pending because the counter affidavit was not filed by the respondents all this while. Subsequently the respondents have filed a counter affidavit on 24.2.2009 giving out the details of the payment which has been made to the petitioner under retiral heads. In the same counter affidavit statement has been made that a sum of Rs.1,01,409.40 has been recovered from the gratuity of the petitioner on account of excess pay drawn by him from some where beginning 26.7.1977. No detail as such has been provided as to what was the anomaly or excess pay but keeping in mind that large number of similar writ applications have been filed by the retired employees of Bihar State Electricity Board holding the post of account assistants - 2 - who had been granted benefit of 12 per cent of their basic pay at the relevant time, such dispute has travelled to this Court and a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mundrika Devi v. Bihar State Electricity Board & others (L.P.A. No. 1241 of 2002) had to say this in paragraph Nos.3 and 4 of the said decision as follows: “3. In the instant case, it is not the contention of the Board that in the matter of alleged mistake, which resulted in excess payment, the appellant had any role to play. The excess payment, if any, is also not due to mistake in pay fixation, grant of increment or the like leading to wrong calculation of salary of the employee. The mistake is also not at the ministerial level. Respondent-Board, in the instant case, after superannuation of the appellant, opined that pay protection given to the appellant, his promotion to selection grade and grant of 12% extra emolument was improper and incorrect; and because of improper and incorrect decision, excess payment has been made to the appellant, which is recoverable. It is not the contention of the respondent-Board that grant of any of them was not by the authority authorized to grant the same. It is the contention of the appellant Board that the grants themselves were not permissible by law and accordingly, any payment made on the basis of such grants is recoverable. 4. As we are bound by the judgment rendered by the Full Bench of this Court and inasmuch as the decision of the Full Bench, as quoted above, squarely applies to the present case, we have no other option but to allow the appeal and set - 3 - aside the judgment and order under appeal, which we do hereby, and at the same time allow the writ petition by directing the Board to fix the retiral/terminal dues of the appellant, without taking note of the contention of the Board, as contained in its order dated 3rd April, 2000, which admittedly came into play subsequent to superannuation of the appellant.”. In view of the above, annexure-6 dated 8.3.2006 is quashed with a direction that the respondents shall now refund the deducted amount to the petitioner preferably within a period of three months from the date of communication / production of a copy of this order. Learned counsel for the petitioner in his rejoinder has stated that petitioner has not been paid statutory interest on his GPF amount. There is no mention about the same in the counter affidavit but it is a matter of accounting. If the petitioner has not been given statutory interest on the GPF amount to which he is legally entitled to, respondents will have a to re- look into the account and if the above fact is found to be correct, steps shall be taken for payment of interest on the GPF amount as well or else a statement of accounts should be forwarded to the petitioner in the same time frame stating the position. The writ application is allowed. rkp (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J) - 4 -