IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.151 of 2006 ALAKHDEO SHARMA, son of Late Yadav Pati Pandey resident of Quarter No. A/20, Sri Ram Path, Saristabad (East) Police Station- Gardanibagh, Patna. Versus 1. THE CHAIRMAN,B.S.E.B. Bihar, Patna. 2. The General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, Central Bihar State Electricity Board, Serpentine Road, Patna. 3. The Electrical Superintending Engineer, Central, Bihar Area Electricity Board, Serpentine Road, Patna. 4. The Joint Secretary, State Electricity Board, Patna. 5. The Accountant Member, Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna. ----------- 6 24.02.2010 Mr. Amrendra Nath Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh learned counsel representing the Electricity Board are present. The petitioner had prayed for refund of an amount of Rs. 18630.90 out of which admittedly Rs. 17980/- had been refunded to him by Cheque dated 12.2.2006 and the balance remained. The petitioner also prayed for fixation of his salary on the basis of last pay drawn of Rs. 3500/-. The petitioner had earlier moved this Court through C.W.J.C. No. 5885 of 1998 and which was disposed of by order dated 10.4.2000 requiring the respondents to examine as to whether any person junior to the - 2 - petitioner was drawing a salary of Rs. 3500/- and in such circumstances the pensionary benefit of the petitioner was also required to be recalculated. Following the aforesaid order of this Court an order came to be passed dated 17.8.2001 (Annexure-7) whereby the Additional Secretary of the Board came to a conclusion that out of two persons namely, Sri Ghanshyam Krishna Murari and Sri Dhirendra Kumar, Mr. Direndra Kumar was drawing a lesser salary to the petitioner and other person namely Sri Ghanshyam Krishna Murari was drawing higher salary than the petitioner on the basis of an increment granted to him consequent upon passing the departmental examination. It was thus held that as admittedly the petitioner did not pass the said examination hence he was not entitled to the said increment and it is by reason thereof that he was drawing a lesser salary. The position has again been explained in the counter affidavit filed on 19.2.2010. I find no infirmity with the conclusion drawn by the Additional Secretary, disposing of the case of the petitioner and having regard to - 3 - the facts and circumstances that the Board having taken a lenient view of the matter, has refunded the recovered amount to the petitioner nothing survives in the writ petition and the same is disposed of. In so far as the amount of Rs. 680/- is concerned, it is stated that the same was adjusted against an advance on house building advance taken by the petitioner. In the aforesaid circumstances nothing survives for adjudication, the writ petition is disposed of. Bibhash (Jyoti Saran, J. )