IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8964 of 2005 NATHUNI SAIN Versus BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ORS. ----------- 04/ 24-02-2010 Heard Mr. R.K. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Vijay Kumar Verma, junior counsel to Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh representing the Board. The petitioner who retired from the post of Driver on 31.1.2005 filed the writ petition for payment of his post retiral dues. A counter affidavit has been filed today through which it has been stated that the admissible retiral dues has been sanctioned and paid to him. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, disputes the payment in so far the interest on belated disbursement of group savings scheme and G.P.F. amount is concerned. He also assails the action of the respondents in effecting recovery of Rs. 35,276/- from his gratuity amount in the light of the order of re-fixation dated 17.06.2005 as contained in office order no. 22 dated 17.6.2005 (Annexure-6). Learned counsel submits that the said recovery has been effected without any proceeding, without any show cause and even in absence of any order being passed in this regard or communicated to the petitioner. He further submits that the action of the Board in revising the pay-scale of the petitioner right since 1983 until his retirement without any notice or hearing is per se arbitrary. He submits that the correctness or incorrectness of the fixation of pay-scale in no circumstances could be attributed to the petitioner. He also submits that there is no dispute as regarding the pay-scale rather the dispute is with regard to fixation of salary on the pay-scale and thus submits that in any - 2 - event the same cannot be attributed to the petitioner who retired from the post of Driver. He also submits that the order is unsustainable being issued in gross violation of principles of natural justice. It is not the case of the respondents that the pay fixation of the petitioner was fraught with fraud or misrepresentation by the petitioner. Neither any proceeding nor any order has been brought on record of the proceedings except a general statement alleging incorrect pay fixation. The issue now stands settled by the full Bench judgment of this Court reported in 2007(3) P.L.J.R. 398 and certainly the case of the petitioner does not fall within the exceptions set out in paragraph 26 of the judgment warranting the said recovery. Having regard to the circumstances, the recovery of the amount of Rs. 35,276/- made from the gratuity amount of the petitioner is set aside and the respondents are directed to remit the said amount within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The petitioner, if so advised, may represent before the authority concerned in relation to interest on delayed disbursement of G.S.S. and G.P.F. amounts in the light of the Circulars of the Board and which shall also be considered within the period stipulated aforesaid upon receipt of any such representation. The writ petition is allowed with the direction/observation aforesaid. S.Sb/- (Jyoti Saran, J.)