IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8450 of 2010 BIMLESH KUMAR RETIRED ACCOUNTS ASSISTANT AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS SON OF LATE KESHAV PRASAD RESIDENT OF C/O- YADUNATH SHARMA, OPPOSITE TARANG PRESS, RADHA KRISHNA MANDIR ROAD, SHIVPURI, P.O+P.S. PATILPUTRA PATNA, DISTRICT – PATNA. Versus 1. THE BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN, VIDYUT BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA. 2. THE SECRETARY, BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VIDYUT BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA. 3. THE DIRECTOR TERMINAL BENEFIT, BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VIDYUT BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA 4. THE JOINT SECRETARY, BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VIDYUT BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA. 5. THE GENERAL MANAGER-CUM-CHIEF ENGINEER CENTRAL AREA ELECTRICITY BOARD, SERPENTINE ROAD, PATNA – 1. 6. ELECTRICAL SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER , PATNA ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, R-BLOCK, SERPENTINE ROAD, PATNA. ----------- 02. 14.05.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent – Board. The grievance of the petitioner is that upon his superannuation on 28th of February 2007 as Accounts Assistant, petitioner was paid the amount on account of gratuity and G.P.F. after a delay of 8 months and as such petitioner is entitled to interest over the delayed payment as per the rules of the Board. It is submitted that from the sanctioned amount of gratuity a sum of Rs. 1,21,537/- has been recovered allegedly on the ground that there was irregularity in fixation of the pay scale. It is further submitted that payment of provisional gratuity was sanctioned as per memo no. 2680 dated 03.11.2009 vide Annexure- 1.It is 2 further submitted that petitioner was asked to submit his explanation as per letter no. 2711 dated 09.11.2009, as to why not a sum of Rs. 1,21, 537 be recovered on account of wrong fixation of his salary. Petitioner submitted his reply by letter dated 04.01.2010, as contained in Annexure- 3 stating to the effect that though the petitioner was entitled to salary which he was paid, however submits that no recovery after his retirement should be made as at no point of time petitioner was responsible for the alleged excess payment or played any fraud or misrepresentation and, as such, requested for withdrawing the order of recovery. He further submits that the aforesaid amount of Rs. 1,21,537/- has been recovered from the gratuity of the petitioner. Learned counsel for Board supports the recovery, however, submits that the grievance of the petitioner as highlighted in the writ petition shall be considered as per law without delay. In the above circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for expeditious disposal of his above grievance, petitioner proposes to file a representation before the respondent no. 4. Considering the above in case such representation stating relevant details of his above grievance is 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 3 grievance of the petitioner be considered in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months on receipt of such representation so that the grievances of the petitioner with regard to the payment of interest also on account of delayed payment of Group Insurance and GPF be considered as per the rules of the Board. However, upon consideration, if it is found that there is no material to substantiate that the excess payment in question were made due to misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the petitioner, the amount deducted shall be returned back to the petitioner within a period of six weeks thereafter. The writ application stands disposed of with the above observations/directions. , Jagdish ( Shailesh Kumar Sinha, J)