IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11311 of 2010 UPENDRA NATH SAH, S/O LATE RAM SURAT SAH, R/O RAJIV NAGAR, ROAD NO. 6, P.S. RAJIV NAGAR, DISTT. AND TOWN: PATNA, RETIRED ACCOUNTANT OF THE BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, BIHAR, PATNA. ---Petitioner Versus 1. THE BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN, VIDYUT BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA. 2. THE CHAIRMAN, BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VIDYUT BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA. 3. THE SECRETARY, BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VIDYUT BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA. 4. THE JOINT SECRETARY, GENERAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, SECTION 13, BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VIDYUT BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA. 5. THE FINANCE CONTROLLER NO.1, BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VIDYUT BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA. 6. THE DIRECTOR, TERMINAL BENEFITS, BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, PATNA. 7. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF ACCOUNTS (SECRETARIAT), BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, PATNA. 8. THE ACCOUNTS OFFICER (SECURITY), BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, PATNA. ----Respondents ----------- 2. 21.7.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Vinay Kirti Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Board. The petitioner is aggrieved by issuance of Letter, bearing Memo No.788 dated 20th of April, 2010, as contained in Annexure 19, whereby a decision was taken to recover a sum of Rs.1,30,116/- from his gratuity on account of wrong fixation of salary. Learned counsel submits that the aforesaid amount has been adjusted against the gratuity amount. The basic submission of the petitioner is that, in fact, fixation of pay of the petitioner after giving the benefit of promotion was rightly done. However, even if the pay fixation was not correctly 2 done, the petitioner cannot be faulted for the reason that at no point of time, he had any role in the same or played any fraud or misrepresented so as to enable wrong fixation of his salary and more so when after receiving salary for a pretty long time, he also retired from service, thereafter it is not justified on the part of the Board to adjust/recover the amount in question from the gratuity allegedly due to wrong fixation of salary. Learned counsel for the respondent-Board, on the other hand, submits that the matter needs to be verified from the record as to under what circumstances the fixation of pay was made which resulted in excess payment. In the above circumstances, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for expeditious redressal of the aforesaid grievances as highlighted in this writ application, the petitioner proposes to file a fresh representation before the Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna (respondent no.3). In case such a representation is filed stating the details of his aforesaid grievances as also the other grievances, which, according to him, have remained to be settled, enclosing therein the copy of the relevant documents, if any, in support of such claims along with the certified copy of the present order within a period of four weeks, the representation of the petitioner be considered in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within a period of four months on receipt of such representation, so that the grievances of the petitioner may be settled and the admitted dues, if any, found payable may also be paid 3 with interest permissible under the rules. Upon consideration, if it is found that while fixing the pay scale, the petitioner had no role in the same or had not misrepresented or played any fraud, in such circumstances, the amount, which was adjusted from the gratuity as indicated in Annexure 19, be refunded back to the petitioner with permissible interest, if any. The writ application stands disposed of with the above observations/directions. PNM (Shailesh Kumar Sinha, J.)