IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12922 of 2005 1. AMBEY DEVI WIFE OF LATE RAMESH CHANDRA JHA 2. SURYA MOHAN JHA SON OF LATE RAMESH CHANDRA JHA, BOTH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE & P.O.- KOILAKH, P.S. RAJNAGAR, DISTRICT- MADHUBANI Versus 1. THE BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN, VIDYUT BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA 2. THE FINANCIAL CONTROLLER, ELECTRICITY BOARD, VIDYUT BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA 3. THE GENERAL MANAGER-CUM-CHIEF ENGINEER, TIRHUT AREA ELECTRICITY BOARD, MUZAFFARPUR 4. THE ACCOUNTS OFFICER, TIRHUT ELECTRIC SUPPLY AREA, MUZAFFARPUR ----------- 3 08.07.2010 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner and the respondent-Board. This writ application was filed on 6th October, 2005 against the recovery of Rs. 1,18,920/- from the gratuity sanctioned in favour of the original writ petitioner who died during the pendency of the writ application and his widow & son were substituted in his place by order dated 11.05.2010. Be that as it may, no counter affidavit has been filed till date. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the aforesaid recovery was made from the gratuity allegedly on account of excess pay drawn by the original writ petitioner due to wrong fixation of pay. It is submitted and stated that it is not the case of the respondent-Board that the original writ petitioner while in service had played any role in fixation of his pay scale or committed any fraud or misrepresentation for receiving the alleged excess salary. It is further submitted that it has been stated in paragraph 12 of the writ application that no recovery can be effected on account of wrong fixation of pay after the gap of nearly twenty-five years. Learned counsel for the respondent-Board is not in position to refute the submission of the petitioner that he had not played any role in fixation of pay nor there is any allegation of fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner in fixation of pay. Considering the submissions of the parties, it is well settled that excess salary paid to the concerned employee on account of misinterpretation of the relevant instructions or rule as also in absence of any fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the concerned employee, the excess amount paid is not justified to be recovered from the retiral dues. In the above circumstances, the order directing for recovery of the amount of Rs. 1,18,920/- as per letter no. 556 dated 03.06.2005 as contained in Annexure-1 is quashed. The respondent no.2 is, hereby, directed to refund the aforesaid amount to the petitioner no.1, the widow of the original writ petitioner expeditiously preferably within a period of two months on receipt/production of the certified copy of the present order. The writ application stands disposed of with the above observations/directions. Manish/- (Shailesh Kumar Sinha,J.)