IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12815 of 2005 RAJENDRA PRASAD JHA Versus THE BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND OTHERS with CWJC No.4741 of 2006 SANT LAL DAS Versus THE BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND OTHERS with CWJC No.12233 of 2006 MOHD.SHAMSUDDIN Versus BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND OTHERS with CWJC No.12242 of 2006 MOHD.SALIMUDDIN Versus THE BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND OTHERS ----------- 4. 5.5.2010. Heard Mr. S.S.Rekhi learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ram Kishore Singh for the Board. As all these writ petitions raise a common issue, hence with the consent of the parties, they have been taken up together with a view towards their disposal at the stage of admission itself. The writ petitioners were initially appointed as Junior Clerks under the Bhagalpur Electric Supply Company limited in and around the year 1972. Subsequently, under an Act of Legislature, the Bhagalpur Electric Supply Company was taken over and stood merged with the Bihar State Electricity Board with effect from 18.7.1975. As a consequence thereof, the services of the petitioners were also taken over and placed under the respondent Board. Under the Fitment policy in vogue in the respondent Board, the services of the petitioners 2 were absorbed against the selection grade posts of Correspondence Clerks and thereafter, the petitioners herein were given the next higher scale upon completion of 10 years of service and 18 years of service under the relevant Rule/circular of the Board relating to removal of stagnation. It was after the retirement of the petitioners that their cases came to be reviewed and it was held that as the fitment of these petitioners at the stage of their respective absorption, was made in the selection grade hence the promotion(s)/higher grade granted to the petitioners under the stagnation removal scheme, was not in accordance with the rule. As a follow up of the aforesaid decision, recovery orders were passed in each of the cases, which have been separately challenged in the respective writ petitions. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that apart from the fact that there is no infirmity in the fitment of the petitioners in selection grade and in the order(s) granting promotions and that the same being in tune with rules/circulars of the Board, required no interference, the action of the Board in adopting a pick and choose policy in the matter by allowing the benefits to some employees and selecting the petitioners for recovery, is 3 patently arbitrary and discriminatory. It is further contended that the Board themselves realizing this position, have reviewed the matter in the case of one Shyam Lal Baitha pursuant to the order dated 7.4.2004 passed in a writ petition filed on his behalf bearing C.W.J.C.No.4321 of 2004 and by order passed on 14.12.2004 (Annexure-4 to C.W.J.C.No.12815 of 2005), it was held that the fixation of pay scales since after the absorption of the employees in the selection grade and grant of promotion(s) was in accordance with law. The recovery order also was set aside and orders were issued for payment of his dues. Learned counsel further submits that the recovered amount has since been refunded to Shyam Lal Baitha as also to one Shatrughan Gope, a retired Linesman. Learned counsel thus submits that in view of clear decision of the Board present in letter dated 14.12.2004 (Annexure-4 to C.W.J.C.No.12815 of 2005)), the petitioners are also entitled to the same benefit/relief. This position has not been controverted by the respondent Board who have rather accepted this position in a supplementary counter affidavit filed in C.W.J.C.No.4741 of 2006. 4 Considering the circumstances set forth above, it is manifest that on principle there appears to be no dispute between the parties on the issue. In fact the Board themselves having reviewed the matter, have annulled the order(s) of recovery in relation to some of the employees and have also refunded their respective amount(s). The cases of these petitioners standing on identical footing also should have been reconsidered by the Board and its authorities in the light of their own decision present in letter dated 14.12.2004 (Annexure-4 to C.W.J.C.No.12815 of 2005). Regard being had to the circumstances discussed above, the orders of recovery in each of the writ petition, is set aside and the respondents authorities are directed to refund the amount(s) recovered from petitioner(s) within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The writ petitions stand allowed. ahk (Jyoti Saran, J.)