IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6257 of 2005 GURUDEO PRASAD, Son of Late Sheo Brat Prasad, resident of Mohalla – Bahuar Choure, Near Sheo Mandir, P.S. – Gaya, District – Gaya. …….. Petitioner. Versus 1. BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, through its Chairman, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 2. The Chairman, Bihar State Electricity Board, Bailey Road, Patna. 3. Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 4. Finance Controller, Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 5. General Manager –cum- Chief Engineer, Magadh Electric Supply Area, Gaya. 6. Electrical Superintending Engineer, Gaya Electrical Circle, Gaya. ………. Respondents. ----------- 8. 5.3.2009 Vide Annexure – 1 dated 19.2.2005while according sanction for payment of gratuity to the petitioner the respondents have ordered recovery of a sum of Rs. 98,432.60 from the gratuity of the petitioner. Petitioner submits that after superannuation without any notice or an opportunity these recoveries is sought to be made, which is contrary to the law laid down in this regard. The benefit of 12% increase in payment was granted to the petitioner by the respondents way back in the year, 1975 and the petitioner derived his benefit for more than 30 years and at no point of time any objection had been raised by the respondents. Not only this large number of similarly - 2 - situated employees have already approached this court and the court had occasion to examine the matter and come to a considered decision that no recovery can be made at this stage after so many years from the gratuity of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the Electricity Board submits that it is only after retirement of the petitioner when the service record was examined by the audit department that they have found that wrong benefit had accrued to the petitioner in the year, 1975 and the same is now sought to be recovered. There is no infirmity in the said decision. It was the action taken in the interest of the Board itself. There could have been an occasion for this court to consider the stand taken by the respondent Electricity Board. But, keeping in mind that in an identical situation, the Division Bench of this court in L.P.A. No. 1241 of 2002, which is the case of Mundrika Devi Vs. Bihar State Electricity Board and Others, the court has categorically held that no recovery can be effected in the given circumstances for the reasons indicated in paragraph 3 and 4 of the order. The present case being no different and law being - 3 - what it is in a similar situation, the writ application is allowed. Annexure – 1 is quashed and the respondents are directed to take steps for payment of the deducted amount preferably within a period of four months from the date of communication/production of a copy of this order. DKS/ (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)