IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5873 of 2005 1. ARUN KUMAR SINGH 2. MITHILESH KUMAR SINGH 3. SUNIL KUMAR SINGH ALL S/O LATE ANUP NATH SINGH R/O VILLAGE- RAJPUR, PS- KOILWAR DISTT-BHOJPUR-- ---------- ---------------PETITIONERS Versus 1. THE BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN 2. THE CHAIRMAN,B.S.E.B, ELECTRICITY BHAWAN,PATNA 3. THE FINANCIAL CONTROLLER, B.S.E.B, PATNA 4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF ACCOUNTS, B.S.E.B.,PATNA 5. THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR, BARAUNI THARMAL POWER STATION, BARAUNI, DISTT- BEGUSARAI---------RESPONDENTS. ----------- For the Petitioner: Mr. N.K.Sinha,Advocate For the Respondent BSEB: Mr.Vinay Kriti Singh,Advocate Mr. V. K.Verma, Advocate ---------- 9 18.3.2009 I. A. No.4368 of 2008 is for substitution of the present petitioner by legal heirs, the details of which is furnished in paragraph-3 where names of three sons of the present petitioner have been indicated. I.A. is allowed. Let the three sons be substituted in place of the present petitioner. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Out of various claims having been made by the petitioner in the present writ application with relation to retiral dues the same stands paid and is not the bone of contention as such in the writ application. The original petitioner however made a grievance against recovery of Rs. 71,501.60. This recovery order was passed on 26.9.1996 which is evident from perusal of Annexure-1 to the writ application. Contention of the petitioner is that since the Board itself had granted the original petitioner exemption from passing the Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination after having completed 55 years of age, there was no occasion to order - 2 - recovery of the increments under the head. He further submits that since the employee had already superannuated in the year, 1998 there was no occasion for recovery from the gratuity amount. Learned counsel for the respondent Electricity Board however submits that it is misplaced kind of challenge because Annexure-1 was passed in the year, 1996 while the petitioner was still in service and at no point of time he has challenged the order of recovery because there is nothing on record to demonstrate that he had either moved the authority or before the court against Annexure-1. Having accepted Annexure- 1, it is too late for him to challenge the same in the present writ application. Further learned counsel for the respondent relies on a decision rendered by the Division Bench of the Court in the case of Chandra Shekhar Mishra vrs. The Chairman, Bihar State Electricity Board & Ors which is LPA No. 842 of 2004 and the order is dated 1.9.2004, where the Division Bench had held that a wrongful payment made by the authority can be recovered. There seems to be some force in the submission made on behalf of the respondents because the original petitioner had himself brought on record Annexure-1 by which the recovery order was made way back on 26.9.96 and the same seems to have been communicated to him because the copy has been marked to him but there is no averment or explanation offered in the writ application why the same was not challenged before the concerned authority or the before the Court of law. It is too late in the day - 3 - therefore now to interfere with the order specially keeping in mind that the said order come into existence while the petitioner had not yet superannuated. The other claims of the petitioner having already been taken care of, the Court is not inclined to interfere with the order of recovery now. No relief in this writ application can be granted in so far as recovery for wrong fixation of pay/increment under Annexure-1. If there are any other legal dues still outstanding for whatsoever reason, the same should be settled by the respondents Board at the earliest. Thus the writ application is disposed off. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J.)