IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16481 of 2004 MD.JILANI, son of late Hakim Mohammad, resident of Mohalla Ujjain Tola (Bettiah), P S – Bettiah, District West Champaran ………. Petitioner Versus 1. BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD through its Chairman, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 2. Joint Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan , Bailey Road, Patna. 3. Financial Controller No.1, Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan , Patna. 4. Deputy Director of Account (H.Q.), Vidyut Bhawan, Bihar State Electricity Board, Bailey Road, Patna. 5. General Manager cum Chief Engineer, Tirhut Electric Supply Area, Muzaffarpur. 6. Electrical Superintending Engineer, Motihari Electrical Circle, Motihari. 7. Electrical Executive Engineer, Electric Supply Division, Bettiah. ……………… Respondents ----------- 08. 17.03.2009 Petitioner wants quashing of the order dated 11.8.2003 contained in Annexure-1 where a consolidated sum of Rs.57,528.30 was sought to be recovered from the gratuity of the petitioner for wrong fixation of pay. Petitioner challenges the same on the ground that without notice and opportunity of hearing and that too after retirement this benefit granted years ago cannot be taken away now. Respondents were directed to file counter affidavit and explain the basis for the impugned order, i.e. annexure-1. Respondents in the counter affidavit have taken a stand that petitioner had been given wrong pay fixation way back in the year 1976 and he was not entitled to benefit of 12 per cent at the given time. When the matter was pointed out by the audit after perusal of the service book, the authority passed the necessary orders. It is further stated that since the petitioner had failed to pass the Hindi - 2 - noting and drafting examination certain amount has already been recovered under the said head. Keeping in mind the decision rendered in the case of Mundrika Devi v. Bihar State Electricity Board & others (L.P.A. No. 1241 of 2002) and the reasoning given therein and so far as recovery under the head of wrong benefit of 12 per cent having been given by the respondents is concerned, no recovery can be made. If any recovery has already been made from the petitioner, respondents are duty bound to refund the same to the petitioner. In absence of any cogent explanation and also the fact that no exemption as such was extended to the petitioner from passing Hindi noting & drafting examination the Court is not inclined to interfere with that part of the order. The writ application stands disposed of with a direction that the recovery under the so-called double benefit of pay fixation must be refunded to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of communication / production of a copy of this order. The writ application stands allowed to the extent indicated above. rkp (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J)