IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14161 of 2005 RAM LAKHAN MEHTA SON OF LATE BABULAL MEHTA RESIDENT OF VILLAGE HARSINHAPUR LAUTAN, POST MURAUL, VIA – DHOLI, P.S. SAKARA, DISTRICT MUZUFFARPUR. Versus 1. THE BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN, B.S.E.B. PATNA. 2. THE DIRECTOR (PERSONNAL, B.S.E.B., PATNA. 3. THE DIRECTOR OF ACCOUNTS B.S.E.B. PATNA. 4. THE FINANCIAL CONTROLLER – I B.S.E.B. PATNA. 5. THE GENERAL MANAGER-CUM-CHIEF ENGINEER, CENTRAL ELECTRICITY SUPPLY AREA, PATNA. 6. THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER (SA, ABM. DEPARTMENT) B.S.E.B. PATNA 7. THE ACCOUNT OFFICER, BHOJPUR ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, ARRAH. 8. THE ELECTRICAL EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICITY SUPPLY DIVISION ARRAH, URBAN. ----------- 05. 14.07.2010 I.A. No. 5353 of 2007 was filed on behalf of the petitioner for amending the prayers of the petition. In some and substance, the prayer of the petitioner is that the amount which was recovered from the retiral dues of the petitioner be refunded back with due interest copy of which has been served to the other side. Having no objection, let the prayer of the petitioner is accordingly amended. The I.A. Application stands disposed of. 2 The grievance of the petitioner is that refixation of his pay vide order as per memo no. 584 dated 10th of April 2004 as also the order contained in memo no. 540 dated 11th of September 2002 as contained in Annexure - 1 and 1/a both were issued by the respondent no. 8 whereby a direction was given for recovery of the excess payment that is 12 percent of the monetary benefits paid to the petitioner on account of the promotion. It is submitted that the recovery was sought to be made on the ground that during the service period, the increments were allowed whereas on perusal of the order contained in memo no. 3645 dated 5th of November 1981, it would appear that the petitioner along with other employee had already passed the Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination and as such, recovery, if any, made on that account is absolutely incorrect. Learned counsel for the Board on the other hand submits that the claim of the petitioner needs to be verified from the records. In the above circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for expeditious disposal of the pending claims, petitioner proposes to file a representation before the respondent no. 4. In such view of the matter, in case such representation stating details of unpaid claims is filed by 3 the petitioner within a period of six weeks along with the certified copy of the present order as also the copy of the relevant documents, if any, in support of the claim, the above respondent shall consider and dispose of the claims of the petitioner as raised in the representation by passing a reasoned order in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within a period of four months on receipt of such representation. Upon considering the representation of the petitioner, if it is found that there was no fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner for receiving the excess amount which is said to have been paid to the petitioner although he was not entitled the amount recovered from the gratuity of the petitioner be refunded back within a period of four weeks thereafter. The writ application stands disposed of with the above observations/directions. Jagdish/ ( Shailesh Kumar Sinha, J.)