IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.103 of 2009 BIJAY KUMAR SON OF LATE RAMGATI SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE LAKHANPURA, P.S. BAKHTIYARPUR, DISTRICT - PATNA Versus 1. THE BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, PATNA THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD VIDYUT BHAWAN, PATNA. 2. THE FINANCE CONTROLLER, BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VIDYUT BHAWAN, PATNA. 3. THE SECRETARY BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VIDYUT BHAWAN, PATNA. 4. THE ELECTRICAL SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, PATNA. 5. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER ELECTRICAL ELECTRIC SUPPLY DIVISION, BARH. 6. THE ASSISTANT ELECTRICAL ENGINEER (STORE) ELECTRICAL ENGINEER DIVISIONAL STORE BAKHTIYARPUR, ELECTRICAL SUPPLY DIVISION BARH, PATNA. ----------- 04. 22.07.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent – Board. The grievance of the petitioner is against the order contained in memo no. 567 dated 03.06.2008 (Annexure-1), whereby a sum of Rs. 3,11,742.39/- was directed to be recovered from the sanctioned amount of Rs. 3,50,000/- towards the gratuity, which was later recovered. It is submitted that all the retiral dues were paid however, the gratuity amount was not being paid on the ground that while the petitioner was working in the Store there were shortage of certain articles. In such circumstances, petitioner had given an undertaking that the amount shortage may be adjusted from the gratuity. The 2 authority assessed the said shortage to the tune of Rs. 3, 11,742.39/- . Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the aforesaid amount is not correct as the said amount was arrived on the basis of an earlier letter written by the concerned Superintending Engineer vide letter no. 1687 dated 22nd July 2008 as referred in Annexure -6 of the writ application. However, the matter was re-examined and the shortage was revalued by the Superintending Engineer thereupon, it was found that against the shortage of 33 items after re-evaluation the amount was found to be Rs. 75,666.39/- as such vide letter no. 1785 dated 23.09.2009 as contained in Annexure -7 the Joint Secretary to the respondent–Board was informed that now instead of Rs. 3,11,742.39 the shortage amount should be taken as Rs. 75,666.39/- only. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in view of the aforesaid letter of the Superintending Engineer as contained in Annexure - 7, the Board was obliged to release the balance amount which was recovered from the gratuity. Learned counsel for the respondent–Board on the other hand submits that the matter needs to be verified from the records. In the above circumstances, learned counsel for the 3 petitioner submits that for expeditious disposal of the pending claims, petitioner proposes to file a representation before the respondent no. 3 with a copy to respondent nos. 2 and 4. In view of the above, in case such representation stating details of his above claims are filed by the petitioner within a period of six weeks along with the certified copy of the present order as also the copy of the relevant documents, if any, in support of the claim, the above respondent shall consider the claims of the petitioner as raised in the representation in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within a period of four months on receipt of such representation. Upon consideration if the representation of the petitioner finds favour, the excess amount recovered from the gratuity may also be paid to the petitioner preferably within a period of six weeks thereafter. However, the claim or its part is found not admissible, the same shall be informed to the petitioner with the reasons thereof. The writ application stands disposed of with the above observations/directions. Jagdish/ ( Shailesh Kumar Sinha, J.)