IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14694 of 2010 KAMLESH PRASAD SON OF LATE YADUNANDAN PRASAD RESIDENT OF MOHALLA MAGADH COLONY, ROAD NO. 1, P.S. MAGADH MEDICAL DISTRICT – GAYA. Versus 1. THE BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN, VIDYUT BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA. 2. THE CHAIRMAN, BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VIDYUT BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA. 3. THE SECRETARY, BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VIDYUT BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA. 4. THE FINANCIAL CONTROLLER BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VIDYUT BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA. 5. THE GENERAL MANAGER-CUM-CHIEF ENGINEER, BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, TRANSMISSION ZONE (III) GAYA, DISTRICT – GAYA. 6. THE ELECTRICAL EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, TRANSMISSION DIVISION, GAYA DISTRICT GAYA. ----------- FOR THE B.S.E.B. : Mrs Sangeeta Sharma ----------------- 02. 06.09.2010 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner and the respondent – Board. The grievance of the petitioner is against the recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,08,498/- from the total sanctioned amount of gratuity to the tune of Rs. 2,72,844/-. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on perusal of the aforesaid order contained in memo no. 960 dated 28th of September 2005, it would appear that the aforesaid amount of Rs. 1,08,498/- was sought to be 2 recovered on account of excess pay drawn by the petitioner. It is further submitted that petitioner received although the correct amount which he was entitled under the rules, however, notwithstanding the above, the amount which was paid to the petitioner in excess was not on account of the petitioner and in the other words, the petitioner did not misrepresent or played fraud for receiving the such payment. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent- Board submits that the claims of the petitioner needs to be verified from the records. He further submits that petitioner has filed the writ application without bringing it to the notice of the authority concerned as such, the grievance of the petitioner could not be verified. 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. 3 with a copy to respondent nos. 4 and 5. In view of the above, in case such representation stating details of unpaid claims is filed by the petitioner within a period of four 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 the claims of the petitioner as 3 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 consideration it is found that there was no misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the petitioner which led to the payment of excess amount recovered from the gratuity, the same be refunded back to the petitioner within a period of two months after passing of the order on his representation. The writ application stands disposed of with the above observations/directions. Jagdish/ ( Shailesh Kumar Sinha, J.)