IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13577 of 2004 ***** Anil Kumar Chaurasia, son of Late Sahdeo Modi, Resident of Sultanganj, Police Station Sultanganj, District Bhagalpur retired from the post of Testing and Commissioning Division, Sabour, Bhagalpur. …. …. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Chairman, State Electricity Board, Patna, Bidyut Bhawan, Patna. 2. The Secretary, State Electricity Board, Patna, Bidyut Bhawan, Patna-1. 3. Joint Secretary, State Electricity Board, Patna, Bidyut Bhawan, Patna-1. 4. Financial Controller-I, State Electricity Board, Patna, Bidyut Bhawan, Patna-1. 5. Deputy Director of Account H.Q., State Electricity Board, Patna, Bidyut Bhawan, Patna-1. 6. General Manger-cum-Chief Engineer, Transmission Zone-II, Muzaffarpur. 7. Electrical Superintending Engineer, Electricity Transmission Circle, Sabour, Bhagalpur. 8. Electrical Executive Engineer, Electricity Transmission Division, Sabour, Bhagalpur. 9. Electrical Executive Engineer, Testing and Commissioning Division, Sabour, Bhagalpur. …. …. Respondents ----------- 7. 20.2.2009. Petitioner filed the writ application for payment of the retiral dues when the same was not settled after his superannuation on 31.3.2003. During the pendency of the writ application an order dated 13.10.2005, which has been brought as Annexure-4 to I.A. No. 686 of 2009, came to be passed by virtue of this order a sum of Rs.49,986/- was sought to be recovered from the D.C.R.G. of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has drawn excess pay due to anomaly in pay fixation while he was in service. The interlocutory application, therefore, is allowed. A counter affidavit has come to be filed by the respondents and they have indicated the payment which have been made and justified the deductions on the ground that the anomaly was pointed out when the service-book of the petitioner was being examined for settlement of his dues. Accordingly the pay of the petitioner has been - 2 - reworked and refixed and the excess amount has been ordered to be recovered. It is, however, not denied that all these exercise has been carried out after the retirement of the petitioner without any opportunity of hearing to him in this regard. Keeping the law in this matter, where a similar issue came to be decided by a Division Bench in the case of Mundrika Devi v. Bihar State Electricity Board & others (L. P.A. No. 1241 of 2002). The Division Bench had this to say in paragraph Nos.3 and 4 of the said decision as follows: “3. In the instant case, it is not the contention of the Board that in the matter of alleged mistake, which resulted in excess payment, the appellant had any role to play. The excess payment, if any, is also not due to mistake in pay fixation, grant of increment or the like leading to wrong calculation of salary of the employee. The mistake is also not at the ministerial level. Respondent-Board, in the instant case, after superannuation of the appellant, opined that pay protection given to the appellant, his promotion to selection grade and grant of 12% extra emolument was improper and incorrect; and because of improper and incorrect decision, excess payment has been made to the appellant, which is recoverable. It is not the contention of the respondent-Board that grant of any of them was not by the authority authorized to grant the same. It is the contention of the appellant Board that the grants themselves were not permissible by law and accordingly, any payment made on the basis of such grants is recoverable. 4. As we are bound by the judgment rendered by the Full Bench of this Court and inasmuch as the decision of the Full Bench, as quoted above, squarely applies to the present case, we have no other option but to allow the appeal and set aside the judgment and order under appeal, which we do hereby, and at the same time allow the writ petition by directing the Board to fix the retiral/terminal dues of the appellant, without taking note of the contention of the Board, as contained in its order dated 3rd April, 2000, which admittedly came into play subsequent to superannuation of the appellant.” In view of the above the order impugned contained in - 3 - Anenxure-4 dated 13.10.2005 is quashed with a direction upon the respondent that they shall refund the above amount to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of communication/production of a copy of this order. Learned counsel for the petitioner has some doubts about the accounting and the payment which has been made. In this regard, he has liberty to point out the infirmity, if any, before the concerned authority and if it requires to be reworked the same shall be done and the final decision will be indicated in this regard. This writ application is disposed of with above direction. Pawan/- (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)