IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14180 of 2005 RAJ KUMAR PRASAD son of Late Parasnath Verma, resident of village Mokarampur, P.S. Nalanda District- Nalanda. Versus 1. THE BIHAR STATE ELEC.BOARD through its Chairman Vidyut Bhawan Bailey Road, Patna 2. Secretary Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan Bailey Road, Patna. 3. Joint Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan Bailey Road, Patna 4. Financial Controller, Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan Bailey Road, Patna ----------- 7 13.05.2010 Heard Mr. Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. V.K. Verma, learned J.C. to Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh, learned counsel representing the Electricity Board. With the consent of the parties, the matter has been taken up for disposal at the stage of admission itself. The petitioner while challenging the legality of the order contained in memo No.738 dated 8.7.2005 (Annexure-1) to the extent it stipulated a recovery of Rs. 64,995.30 by reason of alleged excess pay drawn by the petitioner, also prayed for direction for payment of the remaining amount of the post retiral benefits. Admitted position is that except the recovery effected pursuant to the order sanctioning gratuity, dated 8.7.2005, 2 (Annexure-1) the other admissible payments towards post retiral dues of the petitioner has been made over to him. The alleged recovery has been undertaken by the respondents on account of grant of double promotional benefits to the petitioner. It is contended that the petitioner was allowed selection grade on the post of Bill Clerk from 27.5.1975 and his salary was refixed by giving him 12% additional benefits. The petitioner was promoted to the post of Accounts Assistant with effect from 20.11.1976 and the salary was again fixed after completion of 3 years on 27.5.1978. It is thus contended that this double fixation benefits accrued to the petitioner first at the time of grant of selection grade and secondly upon completion of three years of service after his promotion to the post of Account Assistant, on 27.5.1978 was not in accordance with Rules and the same was rectified under office order No. 1233 dated 30.4.2005 and the scale of the petitioner was reduced from Rs. 660/- to 588/- with effect from 27.5.1978. Upon such refixation, it was seen that an excess salary of Rs. 64,995.30 by way of excess salary drawn by the petitioner and which has since been 3 recovered from his gratuity amount in the light of the stipulation contained in the gratuity payment order dated 8.7.2005. Learned counsel for the Board thus submits that the Board has simply rectified the discrepancy that had occurred in the pay fixation and which was carried out much prior to the retirement of the petitioner and thus there is no infirmity in the said action. Whether or not there was any infirmity in the fixation of the salary of petitioner at the stage of grant of selection grade by adding 12% benefit and again in providing the said benefit at the stage of promotion, is an issue, considered by a Bench of this Court in a case reported in 2010 (1) PLJR 347 (Satya Narain Lal versus State of Bihar and Ors.). By the Bench decision (supra) it was held that there was no infirmity in the fixation of salary by grant of 12% additional benefits both at the stage selection grade and again at the time of promotion in the light of the orders. It was held that the double benefit was itself provided in the office order dated 19.11.74 and only for a short period the said benefit was sought to be withdrawn, in context to workmen 4 under order No. 515 dated 7.5.1976, only to be restored under office order No. 425 dated 7.5.1983. It was thus held that the benefits were never really withdrawn as regarding other employees. It was further held that interference with the fixation of salary of the workmen alone on the basis of the office order No.515 dated 7.5.1976 would give rise to a situation of hostile discrimination and would be patently arbitrary. Having held as such the Court proceeded to quash the recovery order and directed for remission of the amount withdrawn from the gratuity amount of the petitioner. Following the judgment aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed the respondents are directed to remit the amount of Rs. 64,995.30 to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The petitioner shall be entitled to raise his grievance regarding payment of interest on the G.S.S. amounts in terms of the Circular of the Board and which may be considered and disposed of in accordance with law. Bibhash ( Jyoti Saran, J.)