IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1567 of 2005 Mirza Badiuzzaman Baig, son of late Nasim Ahmed Baig, resident of Village- Garri, P.S. Jalley, District- Darbhanga. ... Petitioner. Versus 1. The Bihar State Electricity Board, through its Chairman, Vidyut Bhawan, Patna. 2. The Chairman, Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna. 3. The Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna. 4. The General Manager Cum Chief Engineer, Bihar State Electricity Board, Tirhut Area, Muzaffarpur. 5. The Deputy Director, Accounts, Bihar State Electricity Board, Tirhut Area Muzaffarpur. 6. The Electrical Executive Engineer, Electric Supply Division, Sitamarhi. ... Respondents. ----------- 03- 3.2.2010 Heard Mr. Ajay Kumar for the petitioner, and Mr. Dharmeshwar Mishra for the respondents. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 18.10.2005 (Annexure-3 to MJC No.3009 of 2005), whereby a sum of Rs.34,002.80P has been recovered from the petitioner because of excessive payment to him while he was in harness. 2. It is stated in the show-cause of the respondent Board filed in the analogous M.J.C. No.3009 of 2005, that the petitioner was on leave without pay during the period 3.4.1969 to 17.4.1969, i.e. for fifteen days, and he was wrongly allowed pay protection. This was detected during the course of audit leading to the order for recovery. The petitioner had, in the meanwhile, superannuated on 30.9.2004. Learned counsel for 2 the petitioner rightly relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Syed Abdul Qadir and others Vs. State of Bihar and others, reported in 2009 (2) P.L.J.R. 74 (S.C.), wherein it has been laid down that recovery in such cases should not be made if the excessive payment had been made to the employee which was not attributable to any fraud, misrepresentation or the like, and that too if he has superannuated from service. No such fraud, misrepresentation, or the like is attributable to the present petitioner. 3. In that view of the matter, we do not agree with the impugned order. The respondents are directed to refund the said sum of Rs.34,002.80P already deducted from the post-retirement benefits of the petitioner within a period of four weeks from today, failing which the petitioner shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 9% thereafter till the date of payment. 4. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. 5. Let a copy of this order be handed over to Mr. Dharmeshwar Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents. (S K Katriar, J.) S.K.Pathak/