IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13181 of 2005 MOHD. ARIF ANSARI SON OF LATE MOHD. YOUSUF, RESIDENT OF CHAMPANAGAR, P.S. NATH NAGAR, TOWN & DISTRICT- BHAGALPUR Versus 1. THE BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN, BAILEY ROAD, POLICE STATION KOTHWALI, TOWN & DISTRICT- PATNA 2. THE JOINT SECRETARY, THE BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, BAILEY ROAD, POLICE STATION KOTHWALI, TOWN & DISTRICT- PATNA 3. THE FINANCIAL CONTROLLER, THE BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, BAILEY ROAD, POLICE STATION KOTHWALI, TOWN & DISTRICT- PATNA 4. THE GENERAL MANAGER, CUM-CHIEF ENGINEER, BHAGALPUR ELECTRIC SUPPLY AREA, MUNDICHAK, POLICE STATION- ISHAKCHAQUE, TOWN & DISTRICT- BHAGALPUR 5. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF ACCOUNTS, BHAGALPUR ELECTRIC SUPPLY AREA, MUNDICHAK, POLICE STATION- ISHAKCHAQUE, TOWN & DISTRICT- BHAGALPUR 6. THE ELECTRICAL SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, BHAGALPUR ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, MAYAGANJ, POLICE STATION- BARARI, TOWN & DISTRICT- BHAGALPUR 7. THE ELECTRICAL EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, BHAGALPUR URGAN ELECTRIC SUPPLY DIVISION, MOJAHIDPUR, POLICE STATION- MOJAHIDPUR, TOWN & DISTRICT- BHAGALPUR ----------- 4 02.07.2010 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner and the respondent-Board. The grievance of the petitioner is in two fold. The submission is that upon the superannuation of the petitioner on 31st August, 2002 as Accounts Assistant from the Urban Electric Supply Division, Bhagalpur, the pension has not been correctly fixed as pension has been fixed @ Rs. 4599/- instead of Rs. 4824/- per month. Further submission of the petitioner is that after superannuation petitioner was allowed two increments, and as such, the concerned authority was obliged in law to revise the retiral benefits of the petitioner taking into consideration the increments allowed to him after his superannuation. Besides the above, it is submitted that the petitioner was sanctioned gratuity to the tune of Rs. 2,17,553/- by office letter no. 1743 dated 23rd August, 2003 issued by the Financial Controller of the respondent-Board, however a sum of Rs. 75,000/- was shown to - 2 - be recoverable amount on account of excess pay drawn by the petitioner due to wrong fixation of pay. It is contended that in fixation of pay petitioner did not play any role nor played any fraud or misrepresentation. It is further contended that the order directing for recovery was taken virtually after twenty-two years of fixation of the pay. Petitioner for redressal of his grievances filed a representation dated 02.06.2004 (Annexure-5) before the Financial Controller of the respondent-Board, however till date no order as been issued as the petitioner has not received any communication to the above effect. Mr. Bijay Kumar Verma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Board submits that the aforesaid grievances of the petitioner would be considered after making necessary verification of record. In the above circumstances, respondent no.3 is hereby directed to consider the aforesaid claims of the petitioner in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within a period of six months on receipt/production of the certified copy of the present order. It is made clear that the Financial Controller of the respondent-Board will be at liberty to seek further information, if any, required from the petitioner while disposing of the aforesaid claims of the petitioner for which the petitioner has already filed a representation as contained in Annexure-5 to the writ application. The writ application stands disposed of with the above observations/directions. Manish/- ( Shailesh Kumar Sinha,J.)