IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3376 of 2005 SURESH PRASAD VERMA, son of Sita Ram Verma, resident of Mohalla – Vivekanand Marg-2, Adarsh Nagar, Post Office – Keshari Nagar, P.S. Shastrinagar, District – Patna. …………….Petitioner Versus 1. THE BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, through its Chairman, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna-1. 2. The Chairman, Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Patna-1. 3. The Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Patna-1. 4. The Financial Controller, Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Patna-1. 5. The Joint Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Patna-1. 6. The General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, Transmission Zone – III, Bihar State Electricity Board, Chandauti, Gaya. 7. The Electrical Superintending Engineer, Transmission Circle, Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna. 8. The Accounts Officer, Transmission Circle, Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna. 9. The Personnel Officer, Transmission Circle, Bihar State Electricity Board,Patna. ……….Respondents ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Ajey Kumar. For the respondent Board: M/S. Vinay Kirti Singh & Vijay Kr Verma. ------------- 08. 05.02.2009 Petitioner is aggrieved because of the re-fixation of his pay and certain recoveries which have been ordered to be made from his post retiral dues. Petitioner was holding the post of Accountant under the respondent Electricity Board when benefit of certain pay scale was granted to him by the competent authorities and infirmity is now being found only after his retirement while question of final fixation of pension was being taken up. Learned counsel for the Electricity Board submits that the stand of the Electricity Board is based on the actual calculation of the pay scale and entitlement of the petitioner. If wrong pay scale was given to him which could only be discovered during fixation of his - 2 - final pension, authorities have done no wrong. Be that as it may, keeping in view the recent decision of the Division Bench rendered in the case of Mundrika Devi v. Bihar State Electricity Board & others (L.P.A. No. 1241 of 2002) this writ application is allowed. The order of recovery is quashed. If any recovery has already been effected from the gratuity of the petitioner the same will be refunded to him within a period of three months from the date of communication/production of a copy of this order. rkp (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J)