1 UNREPORTED IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.863 OF 1997. Ramesh Nago Shimpi, Age 55 years, Occ.Service, R/o 132, K.V.Substation, Maharashtra State Electricity Board Colony, Hirapur Road, Chalisgaon, Dist.Jalgaon. ... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra. 2. Chairman, Maharashtra State Electricity Board, Prakashgad, Bandra (E), Bombay. 2A. Chief Engineer, Vidyut Bhavan, Ground floor, Nasik Road, Nasik. 3. Superintendent Engineer, Nasik Circle, M.S.E.B., Vidyut Bhavan, lst floor, Nasik Road, Nasik. 4. Executive Engineer, Maharashtra State Electricity Board, Chalisgaon, Taluka Chalisgaon,Dist.Jalgaon. ... Respondents. ... Mr.R.N.Dhorde, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.N.B.Patil, Asstt.Govt. Pleader for the State. 2 Mr.S.H.Joshi, advocate for the Respondent Nos. 2,2A, 3 and 4. ... CORAM : B.R.GAVAI AND : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,JJ. Date : 16.06.2010. ORAL JUDGMENT (Per B.R.Gavai,J.) 1. By the present petition, the petitioner seeks a writ of Mandamus directing Respondent Nos.2 to 4 to consider the claim of reward of the petitioner. 2. According to the petitioner, when he was working with the Respondent M.S.E.B., he had detected that the Hindustan Aeronautical Co. Ltd., during last 15 years had paid amount less than Rs.17,34,360/-. Accordingly steps for recovery were taken by the Respondent Electricity Board. Contending that the said amount of Rs. 17,00,000/- (Rupees seventeen lacs and odd) could be recovered on account of diligence of the petitioner, the petitioner made a representation to the Respondent M.S.E.B. for grant of 5% of the 3 said amount in accordance with the Rules and Regulations governing the service conditions. Not only this but the Union of which the petitioner is member also recommended the case of the petitioner. However, since the Respondent M.S.E.B. did not grant the said amount to the petitioner, the petitioner has approached this Court. 3. Mr.Dhorde, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that in accordance with the Rules framed by the M.S.E.B. since the amount of Rs.17,00,000/- (Rupees seventeen lacs) which was paid less by the Hindustan Aeronautical Co.Ltd.,could be noticed on account of diligence of the petitioner, the petitioner was entitled to 5% of the said amount as reward. 4. We have perused the Rules and reply filed on behalf of the Respondents. Perusal of the Rules would reveal that the award is required to be paid to an employee only when a theft is detected by the said employee. From the perusal 4 of reply, it would reveal that the amount which was paid was not on account of theft but on account of miscalculation. 5. In that view of the matter, we do not find that the petitioner is entitled to the reward as per the service conditions. The petition is therefore, dismissed. Rule discharged. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) (B.R.GAVAI,J.) asp/office/wp86397