IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.771 of 2010 DUKHI SINGH, RETIRED ASSISTANT STOREKEEPER, SUPER SELECTION GRADE ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, DUMKA S/O LATE SUBEDAR SINGH R/O AZAD CHOWK GANGJALA, SAHARSA Versus 1. BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD 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 DIRECTOR TERMINAL BENEFIT, BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD VIDYUT BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA 5. THE JOINT SECRETARY, BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD VIDYUT BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA 6. THE GENERAL MANAGER-CUM-CHIEF ENGINEER SAHARSA ELECTRIC SUPPLY AREA, SAHARSA ----------- 3 08.02.2010 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner and the respondent-Board. The grievance of the petitioner is that after his superannuation on 31st March, 2001 no amount could be recovered from the pensionary benefits of the petitioner as has been done as per the memo no. 1110 dated 15.10.2009 issued by the respondent no.4 whereby a sum of Rs. 1,20,000/- has been recovered alleged on the ground that the petitioner did not pass the Hindi Noting & Drafting Examination at the material time which disentitles him to receive increments. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no amount is recoverable from the petitioner on the aforesaid ground after his retirement since the petitioner at no point of time played any fraud or misrepresentation which led to the sanction of those increments. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent- Board submits that the petitioner since was not entitled to receive the increments which was paid to him, the aforesaid amount is liable to be recovered and the amount was rightly recovered. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of the respondent-Board is not correct which would appear on verification of the record which shows that the petitioner has passed the aforesaid examination in the year 1994 itself and retired on 31st March, 2001. The pensionary benefits were sanctioned after long delay and from that a sum of Rs. 1,20,000/- is sought to be recovered is not correct, and therefore, petitioner proposes to file a representation before the respondent no.3 stating the aforesaid grievances. In this view of the matter, in case such representation is filed within a period of four weeks from today stating the details of the claims along with copy of the relevant documents as also the certified copy of the present order, the respondent no.3 shall consider the grievances of the petitioner, as raised in the representation, in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within a period of four months on receipt of such representation so that the grievances of the petitioner could be settled without further delay. It goes without saying that in case the representation of the petitioner finds favour, the respondent no.3 shall simultaneously issue necessary orders so that the amount in question recovered from the pensionary benefits of the petitioner could be refunded back with statutory interest without delay. The writ application stands disposed of with the above observations/directions. Manish/- (Shailesh Kumar Sinha,J.)