IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1730 of 2008 RAMRUP MISHRA, son of Late Chintaman Mishra, resident of Village-Kamdeopur, P.O. Kamdeopur, P.S. Amarpur, District Banka. ---Petitioner Versus 1. The Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna, through its Secretary. 2. The Chairman, Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 3. The Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 4. The Joint Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 5. The Financial Controller-1, Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 6. The Deputy Director of Accounts (Headquarter), Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 7. The General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, Electric Supply Area Board, Bhagalpur. 8. The Electrical Superintending Engineer, Electrical Circle, Bhagalpur. 9. The Deputy Director of Accounts, Electric Supply Area Board, Bhagalpur. 10. The Electrical Executive Engineer, Electric Supply Division, Banka. 11. The Assistant Electrical Engineer, Electric Supply Sub-Division, Amarpur, Banka. ---Respondents ----------- 5. 7.9.2010 Heard Mr Shiw Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Nilu Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Board. The grievance of the petitioner is that although during the pendency of this writ application, the respondent-Board has issued Memo No.1142 dated 17th of November, 2008, as contained in Annexure 3, sanctioning Rs.2,88,618/- as the amount payable on account of gratuity, but a sum of Rs.40,012.30 on account of excess - 2 - pay drawn during the service period due to wrong fixation of pay as also a sum of Rs.52,902.80 on account of excess pay drawn due to non-passing of Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination (hereinafter referred to as “the Examination”) and Rs.400/- on account of T.A. advance were directed to be recovered. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the balance amount of Rs.1,95,302.90 out of the aforesaid sanctioned amount of Rs.2,88,618/- has, however, been received by the petitioner under protest. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner had passed the Examination, which would be apparent from letter dated 6th of April, 1994, as contained in Annexure 4 to Interlocutory Application No.8669 of 2009 filed in this case for quashing the part of Annexure 3, whereby aforesaid recovery has been directed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the even though the ground taken that the petitioner did not pass the Examination as per the impugned order is not correct. Notwithstanding the above, it is submitted that after superannuation of the petitioner, the amount which was paid long ago while he was in service is not justified to be recovered even though the petitioner did not play any role in his pay fixation which resulted in the excess payment of salary or committed any fraud or misrepresentation for receiving the excess payment on account of the increment allowed to him against non- passing of the Examination. In other words, submission is that for making the alleged excess payment as indicated in Annexure 3, the petitioner cannot be faulted in the absence of any allegation of fraud or misrepresentation committed in any manner while in service. - 3 - Mrs. Nilu Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Board submits that the claim of the petitioner that no amount can be recovered needs to be verified from the record in order to find out as to under what circumstances the aforesaid amount was paid to the petitioner, which has been recovered from his gratuity. In the above circumstances, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for expeditious disposal of his grievances against the recovery as mentioned in Annexure 3, the petitioner proposes to represent before the Secretary of the Board (respondent no.3). In case such a representation is filed stating the details of his grievances as also enclosing the copy of the relevant documents, if any, in support of such claims along with the certified copy of the present order within a period of four weeks, the grievances of the petitioner as raised in his representation be considered and disposed of in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within a period of four months on receipt of such representation. However, upon consideration, in case the representation of the petitioner is accepted, the amount recovered be refunded back to him within six weeks thereafter. The writ application stands disposed of with the above observations/directions. PNM (Shailesh Kumar Sinha, J.)