IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5407 of 2010 BHULA BHAI SRIVASTAVA S/O LATE JAGDISH NARAYAN SHRIVASTAVA R/O VILL.- NANDPUR, P.S.- MANJHI, DISTT.- SARAN (CHAPRA) Versus 1. THE BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN, ELECTRICITY BOARD, BELLEY ROAD, PATNA 2. THE CHAIRMAN BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, BELLEY ROAD, PATNA 3. THE FINANCIAL CONTROLLER, BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, PATNA 4. THE SECRETARY BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, BELLEY ROAD, PATNA 5. THE DIRECTOR OF ACCOUNTS BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, PATNA 6. THE GENERAL MANAGER, BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, TIRHUT AREA ELECTRICITY BOARD, MUZAFFARPUR 7. THE ELECTRICAL SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CIRCLE, CHHAPRA 8. THE ACCOUNT OFFICER, BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ELECTRIC SUPPLY OFFICE, CHHAPRA ----------- 07. 26.07.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent – Board. A supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent – Board. The grievance of the petitioner is against the recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,47,778/- which has been recovered by the Board on the alleged ground that the petitioner was paid excess salary by way of allowing the promotional benefits to him on his promotion to the post of Head Clerk. 2 It is submitted that while the petitioner was working as a Correspondence Clerk, he was allowed the benefit of salary of Selection Grade in the year 1977. Later on, on being promoted, the petitioner was allowed the promotional benefit by increase in his salary. Submission is that petitioner was rightly given the promotional benefit and there is no error. Petitioner approached this court by filing a writ petition vide C.W.J.C. No. 1364 of 2005, which was disposed of by order dated 30th of April 2009 permitting the petitioner to file a representation. The representation of the petitioner was considered and rejected and communicated to him vide Annexure- 8. It is further submitted that notwithstanding that the petitioner was entitled to receive the promotional benefit, however, there is no denial to the fact that while getting the promotional benefit there is no allegation of fraud or misrepresentation on his part and as such, after retirement it was not justified on the part of the Board to recover the said amount. Mrs. Namrata Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent – Board, on the other hand, submits that petitioner was not entitled to promotional benefit on his promotion to the post of Head Clerk as the petitioner was allowed the benefit of Selection Grade of pay while he 3 was on the post of Correspondence Clerk. Considering the submission of the parties, notwithstanding the rival submissions to the entitlement or disentitlement to the benefit of promotion, it is not in dispute that there was no allegation against the petitioner of practicing any fraud or misrepresentation in receiving the promotional benefit. In view of the above, the order rejecting the representation as contained in Annexure- 8 is hereby quashed and the concerned respondent is hereby directed to refund the amount of Rs. 1, 47, 778/- which was recovered from the gratuity expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months of receipt/ production of certified copy of the present order. The writ application stand disposed of with the above observations/directions. Jagdish/ ( Shailesh Kumar Sinha, J.)