IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.989 of 2008 1. Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna through its Secretary, Bailey Road, Patna, 2. Financial Controller, Bihar State Electricity Board,Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna, 3. General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, Transmission, Chandauti, Gaya, 4. Electrical Executive Engineer, Electric Supply Division, Bhagalpur(Rural), 5. Deputy Director of Personnel, Bhagalpur Area Electricity Board, Bhagalpur, ………….. Respondents/ Appellants Versus Mahendra Mandal son of late Sipahi Mandal, resident of Village Athgama, P.S. Naugachhia, District Bhagalpur, … Petitioner/Respondent For the Appellants: Mr. Ram Kishore Singh, Advocate, For the Respondent: Mr. R.K. Sinha, Advocate ….. 7 01.05.2009 For the reasons stated in the affidavit, I.A. No. 7456 of 2008 is allowed and the delay in filing the instant Letters Patent Appeal is hereby condoned. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The writ petitioner was employed in the appellant- Electricity Board as a Clerk in 1966. He was granted selection grade scale with effect from 01.07.1977. Thereafter he was promoted as Head-Clerk with effect from 1.8.1982 and was granted selection grade with effect from 1993 and he also got super selection grade scale in October 2000. The writ petitioner retired from service with effect from 31.12.2001. An action was 2 taken by the respondent-Board to recover amount from the gratuity of the writ petitioner on the contention that he was given the benefit of 12% of pay with effect from 20.08.1982, even though the above benefit can be given to the writ petitioner, as Standing Order dated 7.5.1983 was available to him at that time but it was not retrospective. The learned single Judge of this Court held that it was a clear case of interpretation of the Standing Orders of the Board and on the basis of a General Circular the amount was taken, it cannot be recovered after decades of service. It was also found that, before the Board officials the writ petitioner did not make any misrepresentation or representation of the fact and considering the submissions of the parties and the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Binod Singh v. Bihar Electricity Board and others, reported in 2007(3) PLJR, 398, the learned single Judge held that the recovery of the excess amount already drawn by the petitioner on the basis of such benefit extended to him should not be made from his gratuity. Another contention of the writ petitioner at that time was that when pension was not being granted and retrial dues were also not being released, out of necessity the writ petitioner 3 gave that undertaking and accepted the amount. His daughter was to be married. He was also facing other financial hardships, and as such, the learned single Judge held that the writ petitioner cannot be stopped from challenging the order of recovery. In the above circumstances, the respondent- Electricity Board was directed to refund the amount recovered to the writ petitioner. We are also of the view that the writ petitioner was granted the aforesaid benefit without any initiative on his part and on the interpretation of the Standing Orders itself it was found by the Board with effect from 20.08.1982. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we see no ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned single Judge of this Court. This Letters Patent Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. (J.B. Koshy, CJ) SC ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)