IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2262 of 2006 MD.WAHID HUSSAIN S/o- Late Hazi Mohammad Tetar Hussain resident of Mohalla-Modal Colony, Asha Nandpur, P.O. and P.S.-Tatarpur, District-Bhagalpur. Versus 1. THE BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna, through its Secretary . 2. The Chairman, Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 3. The Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Baily Road, Patna. 4. The Joint Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Baily Road, Patna 5. The Finance Controller-1, Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Baily Road, Patna 6. The Director of Accounts, Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Baily Road, Patna 7. The General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, Electric Supply Area Board, Bhagalpur. 8. The Electrical Superintending Engineer, Electrical Circle, Bhagalpur. 9. the Electrical Executive Engineer, Rural Electric Supply Division, Bhagalpur. 10. The Assistant Electrical Engineer, Electric Supply sub-Division, Kahalgaon, Bhagalpur. ----------- 2 19.02.2010 Heard Mr. Shiv Kumar Jha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Dharmeshwar Mishra learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Board. The petitioner who superannuated from the post of Account Assistant from the State Electricity Board on 31.1.2005 filed the writ petition for payment of post retiral benefits together with admissible interest thereon. A further challenge was made to an order bearing No. 573 dated 6.6.2005 (Annexure-2) whereby a sum of 2 Rs. 4,109.50 had been recovered from the gratuity admissible to the petitioner by reason of incorrect pay fixation. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said recovery has been made without issuing any show cause to the petitioner much less drawing any formal proceeding and thus the recovery being in the teeth of the principles of natural justice is not sustainable. Learned counsel further submits that no details have been provided as to the stage of incorrect pay fixation. He submits that the order sanctioning gratuity as contained in Annexure-2 which also stipulates recovery merely states that the same was by reason of wrong fixation of pay. A short counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent Board in which the details of payment has been mentioned and again a general statement has been made that the amount was recovered from the gratuity of the petitioner as it was found that the petitioner had drawn excess salary by wrong fixation of pay. No details in support of the recovery has been provided except a general statement. Be that as it may, having regard to the circumstances that the order of recovery of Rs. 4109.50 has been passed much after retirement of the petitioner and even without issuing him any show cause or drawing 3 recovery proceeding the same is unsustainable in law and is thus set aside. In absence of the petitioner being charged with any fraud or misrepresentation in drawing his salary, the recovery effected by the Board cannot be upheld. In the result, the writ petition is allowed the order bearing memo No. 573 dated 6.6.2001 as contained in Annexure-2 in so far as it relates to recovery of an amount of Rs. 4109.50 is set aside and the authorities of the Board are directed to refund the same to the petitioner within three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The petitioner may also raise his grievance for payment of statutory interest of belated payment of G.S.S. and G.P.F. and which shall be considered and disposed of in accordance with law in the light of the statutory provision. The writ petition is allowed to the extent stated above. Bibhash (Jyoti Saran, J. )