IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16858 of 2010 KRISHNANDAN SHARMA, AGE ABOUT 60 YEARS, SON OF SRI RAM BARAN SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AHUARA, P.S. NAUBATPUR, DISTRICT PATNA. Versus 1. BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, VIDYUT BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD PATNA. 2. GENERAL MANAGER CUM CHIEF MANAGER, BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, TRANSMISSION ZONE, PATNA. 3. ELECTRICAL SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, TRANSMISISON CIRCLE, PATNA. 4. ELECTRICAL EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, TRANSMISISON DIVISION, KHAGAUL. For the petitioner : Mr. M.K. Thakur, Advocate. For the Board : Mr. Ranjit Sinha, Advocate. ----------- 03. 06.10.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the Bihar State Electricity Board(hereinafter referred to as the Board). 2. Petitioner superannuated while serving the transmission division of the Board on the post of Unskilled Khalasi with effect from 31.7.2010. He filed this writ application questioning the office order No.33 dated 19.8.2010, Annexure-1 passed by the Electrical Executive Engineer of the Board, whereunder scale and increment payable to the petitioner has been revised with effect from 1.7.1978 till the date of his superannuation i.e. 31.7.2010 with direction to the Accountant of the division to make consequential recovery form the retiral dues payable to the petitioner. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that scale and increment payable to the petitioner has been fixed from time to time. Last fixation was made in terms of the notification of the - 2 - Board bearing No. 275 dated 24.10.2000 in form B which is contained in Annexure-4 to this application, perusal whereof would indicate that fixation made thereunder was approved by the committee of high officials of the Board. The increment and emoluments payable to the petitioner under the impugned order is contrary to the aforesaid fixation made under Annexure-4. It is further submitted that having received the increment allowed from time to time petitioner has already appropriated the same. If any mistake was committed by the authorities of the Board in granting such increment steps for recovery should have been taken within a reasonable time of such fixation and payment. It shall be very hard for a retired employee to part with the amount already appropriated from his retiral dues. In this connection, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Syed Abdul Qadir and others Versus State of Bihar and others, reported in 2009(2) PLJR 74(SC), whereunder Lordships of the Supreme Court have ruled that the excess amount paid to the employee should not be recovered from the retiral dues of the employee if the excess payment is not on account of misrepresentation or fraud on his part and the excess payment was the result of mistake committed by the authorities themselves. 4. Placing reliance on the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is directed that recovery in terms of the order dated 19.8.2010, Annexure-1 be not be made from the - 3 - terminal dues of the petitioner his pension, however, be fixed as per his last drawn salary payable to him in terms of order dated 19.8.2010 and to that extent order dated 19.8.2010 is modified. Retiral dues of the petitioner be released in the light of the impugned order dated 19.8.2010 as modified by this Court under this order as early as possible, in any case within two months from the date of receipt of this order. 5. The writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. Rajesh/Ibrar (V.N. Sinha, J.)