IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14189 of 2005 RANDHIR KUMAR THAKUR Versus THE BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ORS ----------- 6 13.05.2010 Mr. Shiv Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. V.K. Verma, learned J.C. to Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh, counsel representing the Electricity Board are present. The petitioner who superannuated from the post of Accountant with effect from 31.7.2004 filed the writ petition for payment of his post retiral benefits as also questioning the stipulation contained in the gratuity payment order bearing No. 368 dated 28.3.2003 directing recovery of Rs. 45,521/- from his admissible gratuity amount said to be by reason of excess salary drawn by the petitioner. The order is placed at Annexure-2 to the writ petition. A short counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Electricity Board setting out the details of payment. Neither any response has been filed by the respondents on the recovery aspect nor any documents have been enclosed in the counter affidavit justifying the action. The counter affidavit is silent on the issue. 2 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the recovery is a consequence of the refixation order contained in office order No. 452 dated 16.12.2004, copy of which was placed before the Court during the course of proceedings whereby the General Manager-cum- Chief Engineer has refixed the salary of the petitioner with effect from 1.1.1985 until his superannuation on 31.7.2004. The refixation exercise has resulted in a conclusion that the petitioner had drawn an excess salary of Rs.45323.05 and which was subsequently increased to Rs.45,421/- but the increase is neither explained in the gratuity payment order nor in the counter affidavit. That the said exercise was carried out almost 5 months after the retirement of the petitioner and without any notice to him or giving him any opportunity of hearing explains its ex-parte attributes. In any event a refixation of salary for a period ranging back 20 years from the retirement of an employee, itself is an unreasonable exercise, until it is found that the petitioner had a role in its fixation or had represented or misrepresented in the same. It is neither the case of the respondents that the petitioner had 3 either any role in the refixation or had represented on misrepresented for the same and this vindicates the petitioner. In the circumstances that the exercise as well as the recovery has been carried out after a long lapse and behind the back of the petitioner, the entire exercise has become arbitrary, unreasonable and in violation of the principles of natural justice. As a consequence the recovery stipulation present in the gratuity payment order bearing memo no. 368 dated 28.3.2005 is set aside. The petitioner would be entitled to refund of the amount of Rs. 45,521/- and which should be paid to him within three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The petitioner will be at liberty to raise his grievance for payment of interest on belated disbursal of G.P.F. amount together with relevant circulars of the Board on the issue and which shall be considered and disposed of by the concerned appropriate authority of the Board in accordance with law. The writ petition is disposed of with the directions aforesaid. Bibhash ( Jyoti Saran, J.)