IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.720 of 2004 1. BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN, VIDYUT BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA.1. 2. THE SECRETARY, BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOAD,VIDYUT BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA-1. 3. THE FINANCIAL CONTROLLER, BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VIDYUT BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA. -APPELLANTS Versus 1. RAJENDRA PRASAD PODDAR, S/O LATE GURUDEO PODDAR, R/O VILLAGE & P.O.-RAUNIA, P.S. BARARI, DISTRICT-KATIHAR -WRIT PETITIONER -RESPONDENT 2. GENERAL MANAGER CUM CHIEF ENGINEER, BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ELECTRIC SUPPLY AREA, BHAGALPUR, BHAGALPUR. 3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF ACCOUNTS, BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ELECTRIC SUPPLY AREA, BHAGALPUR, BHAGALPUR. -RESPONDENTS -RESPONDENTS 12 16.04.2009 Petitioner retired as Head Clerk on 31.10.2002. When his retrial dues were paid, some amounts were retained on the ground that excess payments were made. There is no case that excess payments were made at the instance of the petitioner or on the basis of any representation made by him when he was in employment. It is the case of the Electricity Board that his salary from the very beginning was wrongly 2 fixed on the basis of Standing Order no. 125 dated 7.5.1983. It is now stated that excess salary wrongly paid is only being recovered and the Board decided on 31.10.2002 that excess salary was paid for all these years to him. Writ petitioner’s case is that salary was paid correctly and in terms of the Boards order there is no case for recovery. In any event Board has not contended that salary was disbursed on any misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner. The order was not communicated before his retirement and the order passed was kept in file. The action of the Electricity Board was completely illegal as without issuing show cause notice it has decided to recover the salary alleged to have been wrongly paid to the petitioner. According to us even the non- communicated decision passed on 31.10.2002 by the Board itself is violative of principle of natural justice. In any event the decision of recovery after the retirement of the writ petitioner is certainly unjustified. We are also not accepting the contention of the Electricity Board that actually pay fixation was a mistaken one. We see no ground to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. 3 The appeal is dismissed. (J.B. Koshy, CJ.) (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.) AAhmad