IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16065 of 2004 GIRIJA BHUSHAN MUKHERJEE, Retired Bill Clerk (Super Selection Grade) aged about 62 years, son of late Satyendra Krishna Mukherjee, resident of Dariyapur Gola Road, Patna- 800 004. …………………….. Petitioner Versus 1. BIHAR STATE ELECTRICIY BOARD through its Secretary, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 2. Financial Controller-1, Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 3. General Manager-cum- Chief Engineer, Tirhut Area Electricity Board, Ram Deyalu Nagar, Muzaffarpur. 4. Deputy Director of Accounts, Tirhut Area Electricity Board, Ram Deyalu Nagar, Muzaffarpur. 5. Electrical Executive Engineer, Electric Supply Division, Maripur, Muzaffarpur. …………………….. Respondents For the petitioner: M/S. R. K. Sinha and Nilesh Kumar Nirala. For the respondent Board : M/S. Subhash Kishore Verma and K.K.Tiwari. ----------- 06. 02.02.2009 Petitioner was working on the post of Bill Clerk at the time of superannuation on 31.1.2003. Vide annexure-1 pension was sanctioned by the respondent Electricity Board but while sanctioning gratuity vide letter dated 12th July, 2003 contained in annexure-2 the respondents decided to deduct a sum of Rs.75,000/- because the petitioner had not passed Hindi Noting & Drafting Examination. Aggrieved by the said order petitioner approached the High Court by filing the present writ application. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that as per the notification contained in annexure-3 to the writ application, petitioner had cleared his Hindi Noting & Drafting Examination. The notification is dated 12th December, 1988. Besides, the respondents have taken steps without any notice or without any opportunity of hearing after retirement of the petitioner. - 2 - During the pendency of the writ application itself when counter affidavit came to be filed, something more has been done. Certain benefit of promotion granted to the petitioner is sought to be taken away and an additional sum of Rs.6219/- is also sought to be recovered. The reason for doing so is that the respondents came to a considered opinion that selection grade granted to the petitioner was before its time and therefore the difference had to be worked out and deductions had to be made. Petitioner submits on the basis of I.A. No. 3010 of 2006 that this additional deduction is without any order having been passed against the petitioner. Not only this, petitioner had been given his time bound promotion and scale treating the earlier part of his service with the private company which was taken over by the Board subsequently. The earlier part of service with the company cannot be ignored in fixation of pension of the petitioner. Petitioner has also categorically stated that another employee namely, Jagarnath Mahto who is identically placed, is drawing his pension and other retiral dues without any objection at any level. Why the objection and deductions have been made against the petitioner is better known by the respondents. Respondents in their counter affidavit have stated the reasons but the Court has to see whether those reasons can be sustained in view of the settled decisions in law in this regard. There is no denial that these deductions are sought to be made from the petitioner after his superannuation and without opportunity of hearing - 3 - or notice to the petitioner. There seems to be something amiss in the way the respondents have taken these decisions contrary to the interest of the petitioner after his superannuation. Keeping in mind the recent full Bench decision rendered in the case of Ram Binod Singh v. The Bihar State Electricity Board, 2007 (3) PLJR 398 as well as the decision rendered in the case of Bihar State Electricity Board v. Bijay Bahadur (2000) 10 SCC 99, annexure-2 stands quashed. Since no order seems to have been passed by the respondents with regard to recovery of additional amount of Rs.6219, even this amount of recovery from the petitioner would be refunded to him. Respondents are further directed to fix the pension of the petitioner by taking into consideration the period of service he had rendered under the Company prior to take over by the respondent Board. The court expects a final settlement in this regard within a period of four months from the date of communication/production of a copy of this order. The writ application is allowed. rkp (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J)