IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13434 of 2004 RAM DAHIN SINHA @ RAM DAHIN SINGH, son of late Ishwar Prasad, resident of village – Mawarak Pur, P.S. Silao, District – Patna, at present residing in the House of Sri B D P Singh, Quarter No. 8, C.D.A. Colony, Shastri Nagar, P.S. Shastri Nagar, Patna -23, District- Patna. ____________ Petitioner . Versus 1. BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, Patna through its Chairman. 2. Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna. 3. Financial Controller-I, Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna. 4. Chief Engineer (Electricity Dept.), PESU, Mangles Road, Patna. 5. Superintending Engineer, Patna Electricity Supply Undertaking, Mangles Road, Patna. ____________ Respondents ----------- 06. 18.02.2009 Petitioner superannuated on 28.2.2002 from the post of head typist. After his retirement steps to settle retiral dues and fixation of pension were taken up and office order dated 11.7.2003 came to be issued where a sum of Rs.31,260.30 was found to be recoverable as excess pay paid to the petitioner based on audit objection. The order in question is annexure-10 which is under challenge in the present writ application. Petitioner’s submission is that this deduction or recovery cannot be effected after superannuation without any information, notice or reason more so when pay protection was granted to the petitioner by a conscious decision taken by the respondent Board on 12.7.1999. The background to the grant of pay protection to the petitioner was that certain juniors to him were drawing higher pay scale. Petitioner made grievance and the same was accepted by the respondents and the benefit accrued to the petitioner till his superannuation. No reasoning has been assigned as to why the - 2 - decision contained in annexure-10 came to be passed. The reasons have emerged after filing of the affidavit by the respondents. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent Electricity Board they have stated that audits have pointed out the that benefit of pay protection cannot be given to the petitioner because it fell foul of office order No. 1033/78 dated 12.9.1978 and to that extent the objection could be in order. Petitioner has, however, brought on record annexure 16 series where the issue of pay protection to the petitioner was considered by the respondents in the respective file and it emerges that there was nothing wrong in the said decision giving benefit to the petitioner at the relevant time. The Court is surprised that despite a considered opinion recorded in the file respondents have chosen to take a contrary view in the counter affidavit. The case however does not get decided on such issue because the question is whether recovery can be made from the petitioner’s gratuity, post retirement specially when the benefit was conferred on the petitioner by a decision taken by the authorities of the Board to which the petitioner had no role to play. In view of the law laid down by the Full Bench in the case of Ram Binod Singh v. The Bihar State Electricity Board, 2007 (3) PLJR 398, the writ application stands allowed. Annexure – 10 stands quashed. If the recovery has already been made then the same will stand refunded to the petitioner forthwith. - 3 - The prayer for interest on delayed payment of gratuity and GPF will be considered by the authorities if the petitioner decides to approach them. rkp (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J)