IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.584 of 2008 KRISHNA PRASAD SINGH AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, RETIRED HEAD CLERK, RAJENDRANAGAR ELECTRIC SUPLY DIVISION PATNA ELECTRIC SUPPLY UNDERTAKING, PATNA, SON OF LATE DEO NARAYAN SINGH, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA- CHONDI NEAR SAVERA CINEMA, P.O. & P.S. BARH, DISTRICT- PATNA Versus 1. THE BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, VIDYUT BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA 2. THE FINANCIAL CONTROLLER NO.1, BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VIDYUT BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA 3. THE GENERAL MANAGER-CUM-CHIEF ENGINEER, PATNA ELECTRIC SUPPLY UNDERTAKING NEAR NEW SECRETARIAT, PATNA 4. ELECTRICAL SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, PATNA ELECTRIC SUPPLY UNDERTAKING, EAST ASHOK RAJPATH, PATNA 5. ELECTRICAL EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PATNA ELECTRIC SUPPLY UNDERTAKING, RAJENDRANAGAR DIVISION, MACHCHUA TOLI, PATNA-16 6. SRI R.P. SRIVASTAVA, JOINT SECRETARY, BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VIDYUT BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA 7. SECRETARY, BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, PATNA ----------- 2 09.04.2010 As prayed for, learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to make necessary correction in the date of superannuation of the petitioner as also to add the Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Patna, as respondent no. 7. Heard learned counsels for the petitioner and the respondent Board. The grievance of the petitioner is that upon his superannuation on 28th February, 2007 from the post of Head Clerk under the respondent-Board the retiral dues have been paid , however while making payment of gratuity a sum of Rs. 1,21,523/- has been recovered in terms of the order contained in memo no. 319 dated 13th April, 2007 (Annexure-1). It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that on perusal of the aforesaid order it would appear that the aforesaid recovery has been made allegedly due to wrong fixation. It is further submitted that according to the petitioner his pay was correctly fixed, however that was refixed and reduced as per Annexure-3 against which petitioner represented as per his representation dated 3rd April, 2004 (Annexure-4) on which no decision was taken and the petitioner subsequently retired on the aforesaid date. Learned counsel further submits that in the present writ application petitioner confines his prayer against the recovery made from the gratuity only. It is submitted that no recovery could be made from the gratuity amount of the petitioner after his retirement in absence of any fraud or misrepresentation practiced upon the concerned officials of the Board in fixing the pay scale which according to the Board was wrong. In support of the above the petitioner has relied upon various decision of this Court specially the orders dated 21.08.2009 (Annexure-6) & 01.05.2009 (Annexure-7) passed in C.W.J.C. No. 788 of 2002 & L.P.A. No. 989 of 2008 respectively. Besides the above the other grievance of the petitioner is that although the amount towards the G.P.F. and group insurance have been paid but the same has been paid after long delay and as such the petitioner was entitled for more interest over the delayed payment although statutory interest was paid. Learned counsel for the Board, on the other hand, submits that the submission of the petitioner that no fraud or misrepresentation was practiced upon the concerned officials of the Board which led to wrong fixation of the pay scale needs to be verified from the records, and as such, petitioner is not entitled for direction of this Court with regard to refund of the recovered amount, however the allegation of the petitioner shall be examined and appropriate order shall be passed. In the above circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for expeditious disposal of the pending claims as highlighted in this writ application, petitioner proposes to file a representation before the respondent no.7. In such view of the matter, in case such representation stating details of unpaid claims is filed by the petitioner within a period of six weeks from today along with the certified copy of the present order as also the copy of the relevant documents, if any, in support of the claim, the grievances of the petitioner raised in the representation shall be considered in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within a period of three months on receipt of such representation so that the grievances of the petitioner could be settled without delay. Upon consideration if the representation of the petitioner is accepted with regard to recovery of amount, the recovered amount be refunded back to the petitioner within a period of six weeks thereafter, however if any of the claims or part of the claim is found not admissible the same shall be informed to the petitioner with reasons thereof by post under registered cover. The writ application stands disposed of with the above observations/directions. Manish/- (Shailesh Kumar Sinha,J.)