IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8586 of 2005 RAMASHISH SINGH Versus BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ORS. ----------- For the Respondent no.1-6 : Mr. Subhash Kishore, Advocate Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh For the Petitioner : Mr. Shivajee Pandey, Advocate Mr. B.N. Tiwari, Advocate ------------- 4 22.07.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Petitioner superannuated from service on 28.2.2001, thereafter he had to approach this Court for payment of retiral dues by way of a writ application earlier, but a direction from the Court to do the needful did not get him any relief and he filed a contempt application against the direction of the Court. The Court in its wisdom decided to give opportunity to the petitioner to come back before the High Court again. It is in this background that the present writ application has been filed by the petitioner. Petitioners assails the order dated 29.5.2003 contained in Annexure – 1 by virtue of which the respondents authorities in its wisdom has decided to deduct a sum of Rs. 32,147.70 paise from the gratuity payable to the petitioner. This order has been passed against the petitioner after his superannuation and 2 according to him without any notice or show cause in this regard. Though, nothing is stated in the impugned order contained in Annexure – 1 as to why this deduction is being made except by stating that it is recoverable on account of the excess pay. There are no details as to when how and what was the occasion to adjudicate as to the excess pay paid to the petitioner. Petitioner however, has fairly brought on record a communication contained in Annexure – 2 dated 3.5.2001, by virtue of which certain corrections have been made in the pay scale of the petitioner. According to the petitioner this could be the basis why Annexure – 1 came to be passed. With regard to Annexure – 2, there are two contentions: First contention is that the benefit was given to the petitioner decades ago which was a result of certain negotiated settlement and matters of dispute which traveled right up till Supreme Court. If the petitioner was granted benefit in this background, there is no occasion for the respondents now to undo the whole thing and that too after his superannuation. The second contention is that even, otherwise, this step would not be taken against the petitioner after 3 retirement and settlement of the dues when infirmity of the kind was pointed out which he was still in service. The Writ Application was filed on 21.7.2005. Time has been granted to the respondent to file a counter affidavit on a couple of occasions, but then the two years have not been enough for the Board to respond to a simple issue. Rebuttal and non-rebuttal does not alter the basic facts which have been pleaded by the petitioner as well as the law settled in this regard decided in the case of Ram Binod Singh Versus Bihar State Electricity Board (F.B.) 2007(3) PLJR, Page – 398. There is no option for this Court but to quash the impugned order contained in Annexure – 1 as well as Annexure – 2. The petitioner would be entitled to full payment of his gratuity and the deducted amount shall be paid to him. Even his retiral dues shall be fixed based on the last pay drawn by him at the time of superannuation. The writ application is allowed with a direction to the respondents to do the needful within a period of three months from the date of communication or production of the copy of this order. Rajeev/ (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)