LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No.353 OF 2005 ******* Against the order dated 25.02.2005 passed by a learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 14140 of 2002. ******* 1. The Bihar State Electricity Board, through its Chairman, Bidhyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 2. The Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board, Bidhyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 3. The Financial Controller-1, Bihar State Electricity Board, Bidhyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. -------------------------------------------Respondents- Appellants. Versus 1. Jagdip Singh, son of Late Karndeo Singh, resident of Village- Sikaria, Ratan, P.S.- Tandawa, (Navinagar), District- Aurangabad –Writ petitioner-Respondent. 2. The General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, Bihar State Electricity Board, Transmission Zone-III, Gaya. 3. The Electrical Superintending Engineer, Transmission Circle, Dehri-on-Sone. 4. The Electrical Executive Engineer, Transmission Division, Dehri-on-Sone ---Respondents-Respondents. ********* For the Appellants: M/S Vinay Kirti Singh with Akhileshwar Singh, Advocates. For Respondents: Mr. Rajeeva Roy, Advocate. P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.K.KATRIAR THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA S.K.Katriar,J. The Bihar State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as “the Board”), in this appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature at Patna, raises a grievance with respect to the order dated 25.02.2005, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby C.W.J.C. No. 14140 of 2002 (Jagdip Singh Vrs. The Bihar State Electricity Board & Ors.), has been allowed, and the 2 Board’s order for recovery of amount erroneously given to the petitioner on account of accelerated promotion has been set aside. We shall draw the facts from the writ proceedings. 2. A brief statement of facts essential for disposal of this appeal may be indicated. The petitioner was appointed in the services of the Board as correspondence Clerk on 04.06.1960. He was granted selection grade on the post of Correspondence Clerk on 27.05.1975, and was promoted to the post of head clerk on 03.04.1976. He was granted selection grade on the post of Heard-clerk on 01.07.1977, whereby under the Board’s scheme 20% of the cadre were to be given to selection grade. This was followed by grant of super selection grade to the writ petitioner w.e.f. 01.08.1988, vide order dated 31.10.1988. The order incorporates the condition that this benefit may be recalled if error is found at later stage. The Board issued Office Order no. 262, dated 09.11.1996, whereby the date of grant of super selection grade was shifted from 01.08.1988 to 03.04.1994. The petitioner superannuated from the services of the Board on 31.01.1997. In view of the said order dated 09.11.1996, the alleged excess payment made to the petitioner was sought to be recovered, leading to the present writ petition which has been allowed, and recovery of the alleged excess payment has been set aside. The appellant is aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge. 3. We have perused the materials on record and 3 considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. It appears to us that the order dated 31.10.1988, granting the benefit of super selection grade to the petitioner w.e.f. 01.08.1988, was conditional. It clearly stated that the benefit can be recalled if error is found at later stage. This was followed by the said order dated 09.11.1996, whereby the benefit granted to the petitioner, namely, grant of super selection grade was not withdrawn, but certain alterations were made and the date of benefit was extended from 01.08.1988 to 03.04.1994. We are of the view that the petitioner never challenged the order dated 09.11.1996, which attained finality. We have, therefore, no option but to give full effect to the order dated 09.11.1996. The sum of Rs. 53,710. 10 P., in fact, has already been recovered from the post-retrial benefits of the petitioner. We do not find any error in the order. 4. We are in this connection reminded of a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Bihar State Electricity Board & others Vs. Madan Mohan Prasad & Ors., reported in 2001(2) PLJR 58, to which one of us (S.K.Katriar,J.) was a member, wherein it has, inter-alia, been held that money benefit granted to an employee can at any stage be withdrawn if the order granting the benefit incorporated a condition that the same can be withdrawn in the circumstance indicated therein. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced herein below:- 4 “Having considered the rival submissions, we are of the view that this appeal is fit to be allowed. Law is well settled that money benefit paid to an employee in excess of his entitlement should not normally be recovered from him after a long lapse of time, particularly after his superannuation from service. It is, however, subject to two exceptions, namely, if the order granting the money benefit itself stipulates that the same is liable to be recovered if found erroneous at a later stage or is subject to approval by authorities. The second exception is that such a money benefit can be recovered if it is found at any later stage on that the same had flowed to the employee on account of fraud, misrepresentation or the like attributable to him. Law is equally well settled that even if the money benefit already paid is not recoverable because of applicability of the dominant principle of law De Hors the exceptions, the pensionary benefits payable in future can be refixed on the basis of the admissible pay.“ 5. This judgment was handed down on 20.02.2001, and reported in 2001(2) PLJR 58, but the same was not brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge. This has been upheld by a Full Bench of this Court in Ram Binod 5 Singh v. Bihar State Electricity Board & others, reported in 2007(3) PLJR 398. The Full Bench has observed that it is settled law that the money benefit granted to an employee attached to the order can always be recovered at later stage for the reasons indicated therein. 6. There is yet another aspect of the matter. The petitioner was granted accelerated promotions on 03.04.1976 and 01.07.1977, in a situation where he had been granted the selection grade on the post of Correspondence Clerk on 27.05.1977. In other words, the petitioner has not been deprived of the money benefit vide Annexure-5, though he has been erroneously given the same by way of accelerated promotions in 1976-77. It was not actually admissible to him. However, the same was not interfered with which petitioner has attained finality by efflux of time. We, therefore, do not agree with the judgment of the learned Single Judge. 7. The appeal is allowed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Birendra Prasad Verma,J. I agree. Patna High Court, Patna Dated 26th November, 2010 BTiwary( NAFR) (S. K. Katriar, J.) ( Birendra Prasad Verma, J.)