IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12441 of 2000 JAGDISH JHA versus THE BIHAR STATE ELECT.BOARD & OTHERS -------- For the petitioner : Mr. Durga Nand Jha, Advocate For the Respondents :- Mr. Kishore Verma,Sr.Advocate ------- 6 18-8-2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for Bihar State Electricity Board. Petitioner was a work-man in Bihar State Electricity Board serving under Electrical Executive Engineer, Electric Supply Division, Madhubani . From the post of Fitter he got promotion to the post of Technician Grade-II with effect from 14/15 January, 1974. On account of policy decision of the Board contained in Standing Instructions of 1977 and 1988 petitioner was given higher pay-scale on account of stagnation in a particular post for 14 years. He was granted Senior Selection Grade with effect from 1-8-1988 as is evident from entries in his service book, a copy whereof is annexure-4. Petitioner superannuated from service on 31-5-1995. Thereafter an amount of Rs.14,499.90 paise has been recovered from the gratuity of the petitioner under the effect of orders contained in annexures 1,2 and 3 which are under challenge. On behalf of petitioner it has been submitted that petitioner was given senior selection grade by a competent authority of the Electricity Board in accordance with the relevant standing instructions of 1988 but recovery is being made from his gratuity on the ground 2 that by a letter of the year 1989 and finally as per standing instruction of 1992 formulated on 11-6-1992, the criteria of stagnation of 14 years in a particular post was revised to stagnation of 20 years, not on any particular post but in the post of initial appointment. Further submission on behalf of petitioner is that petitioner was given senior selection grade without any wrong, mala fide or improper motives and at the time of such grant the decision was in accordance with the policy decision of the Board. Hence, as per judgment of a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Binod Singh Vrs. Bihar State Electricity Board reported in 2007(3) PLJR 398 where the payment has been made on account of even a mistake or error in interpretation of relevant rules and if such mistake or error is not mala fide but on account of two possible interpretations, recovery of alleged excess payments as already made is not justified. From paragraph-26 of the aforesaid judgment it is clear that even if any decision of a competent authority which is not mala fide is reviewed at a later stage then such correction shall apply only prospectively. In the present case clearly there was no error in granting senior selection grade to the petitioner with effect from 1-1-1988 in accordance with the standing instructions of 1988 which were then applicable. The matter would have been different if on account of later policy decision the authorities had proceeded to review their earlier orders with prospective effect. But in this case petitioner continued to 3 Naresh receive his pay in senior selection grade till he superannuated on 31-5-1995. Apparently a review is sought to be done later from a retrospective date. This is not permissible as per well-established principle of administrative law that decisions of administrative authorities affecting vested rights should be prospective and also in view of law laid down in the aforesaid judgment in the case of Ram Binod Singh (supra ). For the aforesaid reasons the prayer made in this writ petition for quashing of annexures 1,2 and 3 so as to declare the recovery of Rs. 14,499.90 paise from the gratuity of the petitioner to be illegal is allowed. As a result petitioner is held entitled to get back the aforesaid amount from the Bihar State Electricity Board . The concerned authorities are directed to pay back the aforesaid amount to the petitioner without any delay and in any case within three months from the date of production/communication of a copy of this order. The writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. ( Shiva Kirti Singh,J)