IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.570 of 2008 Sri Hari Palatan Prasad Yadava S/O-Late Ram Nandan Pd. Yadav resident of Village-Sadatipur P.S.-Kanti, District-Muzaffarpur ……Petitioner Versus 1. The Bihar State Electricity 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-I, Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna ........Respondents ----------- 03. 04.02.2009 The petitioner is aggrieved by a deduction of about Rs. 96,000/- from his gratuity and claims refund thereof. He had earlier come to this Court when this Court directed the respondents to give reasons for the said deduction. The reasons having been supplied, they are challenged in the present writ application. From the order impugned, it appears that the Financial Controller has held that in view of the Board Standing order No. 515 dated 07.05.1976, a person can not be given double benefit. This benefit was wrongly given to the petitioner since 1981 and this order is being passed in the year 2007 i.e. after 26 years. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the principle order by which this double benefit was granted was Board’s Office order No. 4562 dated 19.11.1974 and - 2 - 3992 dated 08.08.1975 which were general circulars in regard to this policy. After the Board circular No. 515 dated 07.05.1976 was issued this position was clarified by subsequent Board’s circular No. 125 dated 07.05.1983 and further after examining the whole thing by Board’s clarificatory letter dated 09.09.1983 it is submitted that though all these were within the knowledge of the Financial Controller, they have not even been referred to much less priority. In that view of the matter, the order impugned is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Financial Controller to decide the position once again keeping in view of the aforesaid office order or any other relevant office order which he may take note of. However, I would like to observe one thing at this place, a right to correct a mistake is an inherent right rather in some cases and obligations but it does not automatically flow from it with all consequences of correction that would admittedly flow as a matter of flow if by a correction a person is put in an inequitable position then even though correction may be permitted, the effect of correction may not be permitted. Hear, admittedly the petitioner was in no manner responsible for the mistake committed twenty five years back. It was if at all mistake entirely committed by Board’s Office now for mistake of Board’s office - 3 - committed twenty five years back, the petitioner is now being punished. To my view, there can not be anything more inequitable and incongruous then this even if the same deduction is permitted in easy installment that does not make it equitable. Any more it is not like restoring status quo antae even in such matters, if it is found to be inequitable, Court is bound to refuse restoration of status quo antae that is a well settled principle. In view of the aforesaid, I find that the steps taken to deduct were fully unjustified. The amount will be refunded to the petitioner forthwith. The writ application thus stands disposed of. The process of re-fixation of salary and consequential retiral benefits in view of the circular noticed above should be completed within two months from the date when orders of this Court are submitted before the Financial Controller of the Board. Shageer (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J)