IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1689 of 2004 05. 21.01.2009 Ram Kumar Bharati alias R.K. Bharati, son of late Deonandan Bharti, resident of New Bangali Tola, Near Shanti Market, Patna-800001 ……………. Petitioner Versus 1. The Bihar State Electricity Board through its Chairman, Bidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 2. The Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board, Bidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 3. The Financial Controller-1, Bihar State Electricity Board, Bidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 4. The Financial Controller (Audit), Bihar State Electricity Board, Bidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 5. The General Manager – cum – Chief Engineer, Transmission Zone-3, Gaya. 6. The Electrical Superintending Engineer, Transmission Circle, New Punaichak, Patna. 7. The Electrical Superintending Engineer, Transmission Division, Khagaul, Patna, Barrack No. 6, New Punaichak, Patna. ………………… Respondents For the petitioner : Mr. Rajeev Roy. For the Board : Mr. Ram KJishore Singh. ------ Vide order dated 23.3.2004 based on the reasoning as rendered in the case of Md. Siddique v. The Bihar State Electricity Board and others, 2003 (3) PLJR 681, the Court was pleased to allow the writ application and quash the order of recovery which was sought to be made on the ground that excess payment had been made. The order in question was challenged in L.P.A. and was tagged along with large number of other cases and placed before a Full Bench for consideration which is the case of Ram Binod Singh v. The Bihar State Electricity Board and others, 2007 (3) PLJR 398. The question was as to when recovery can be effected after retirement of an employee. The Full Bench laid down the guidelines - 2 - and remanded the writ application back for fresh consideration. That is how the writ application is listed again before the learned Single Judge. The Court has examined the ratio laid down in the case of Md. Siddique (supra) as well as the parameters within which recovery can be effected in para 26 of the decision of the Full Bench. Learned counsel points out that where two interpretations of a provision were possible and one was consciously approved and adopted by the competent authority and is applied generally to all concerned, then any error sought to be corrected at a later stage can only be prospective and same cannot be a ground for effecting recovery. Similar is the view expressed by the learned Single Judge in the case of Md. Siddique. In other words, the reasoning based on which the writ application was allowed earlier on 23.3.2004 cannot be said to be erroneous. Though learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent-Electricity Board has tried to demonstrate that benefit has been illegally derived by the petitioner while he was in service but he does not dispute that this benefit accrued to the petitioner almost 30 years ago. In view of the two decisions indicated above, petitioner has made out a case for interference. The writ application is allowed. Respondents are directed to fix the pension of the petitioner on the basis of last pay drawn which according to the petitioner was - 3 - Rs.9760/- in the pay-scale of Rs.5530-100-6970-225-11020/-. No recovery would be made from the petitioner’s salary by virtue of being given benefit of 12 per cent in the year 1977. It is hoped and expected that pension and other retiral dues of the petitioner would now be settled at the earliest. rkp (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J)