IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.2560 of 2003 SRI DAYA NAND KISHORE PRASAD Versus THE BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ORS ----------- For the petitioner : None For the opposite parties : None -------- P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal ---- Dated, the 07th July, 2008. The respondents no.1 to 6 have justified the deduction of Rs.14576/- on the grounds set out in paragraphs no. 7, 8 and 9 which read thus: “7. That in view of above Audit objection the General Manager-cum- Chief Engineer, Kosi Area Electricity Board was after due examination of all facts passed office order no.531 dated 20.10.2003 refixing his pay and allowing selection grade with effect from 28.11.1993 which was not allowed earlier. As a result of this order the petitioner was benefited and total amount of recovery as stated in writ petition was reduced to maximum amount of Rs.14576.60 paise to petitioner which would be evident from following calculation. i) Total recoverable amount due Rs.67471.60 to wrong fixation. ii) Total recoverable amount due to Rs. 110.30 non-passing of Hindu noting Exam. ------------------------ Rs.67581.90 iii) Amount payable due to grant of Rs.52895.00 of selection grade. Balance amount recoverable -------------- Rs. 14686.90 - 2 - A Xerox copy of the office order no.531 dated 20.10.2003 from General Managing-cum-Chief Engineer Koshi Area, Electricity Board is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-„P‟ to this counter affidavit. 8. That in the above balance recoverable amount again Rs.110.30 recoverable due to non passing of Hindi examination was exempted and ordered for repayment. Thus only Rs.14576.60 paise was recovered from petitioner on account of rectification of error in pay fixation. This pay fixation was in accordance with Board rule and by end large the petitioner‟s last basic pay was enhanced which benefited him for retrial dues too. 9. That the recovery of Rs.14,576.00 is just proper and in accordance with law.” 2. No rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner controverting the aforesaid facts. 3. As a matter of fact, neither the petitioner, nor his counsel is appearing to press this MJC. 4. Be that as it may, for the reasons set out by the respondents in paragraphs no.7, 8 and 9 of the show cause, this MJC is wholly misconceived. It is dismissed accordingly. R.M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J. Sunil