IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10918 of 2005 SHIVADHANI PRASAD SINGH, age 67 years, son of late Chedi Prasad Singh, resident of village- Gandi Rat, P.O.Rata, P.S. Fullidumar, District-Banka Versus 1. THE CHAIRMAN, Bihar State Electricity Board, Bailey Road, Patna. 2. The Joint Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board. 3. Bailey Road, Patna. 4. The General Manager cum Chief Engineer, Bihar State Electricity Board, Bhagalpur. 5. Electrical Executive Engineer, Electric supply Division, Banka, Town and District Banka ----------- 2 02.04.2010 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Ram Kishore Singh, learned counsel representing the Electricity Board The petitioner superannuated from the post of Headclerk, Electricity Supply Division, Banka under the Bihar State Electricity Board with effect from 1.7.1998. Admitted position is that upon superannuation the post retiral dues and other dues admissible to the petitioner was paid to him except the gratuity amount was withheld by the Board. No reasons were assigned thereof. After a lapse of five years the petitioner was informed vide memo No. 942 dated 9.5.2003 which is a gratuity payment order 2 authorizing payment of Rs. 1,04,016/- being the gratuity admissible to the petitioner but adjusting the entire amount towards the recovery of excess pay drawn by the petitioner. In addition to the said adjustment, a further stipulation was made in the order regarding recovery of further amount of Rs. 15,984/- from the pension and other dues admissible to the petitioner. As a consequence thereof the entire gratuity amount was withheld by the respondents. It is at that stage the present writ petition was filed assailing the validity of the order of recovery as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition. The counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondent Electricity Board and its authorities by itself demonstrates the confused state of affairs. Whereas in paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit it is stated that the petitioner had drawn an excess amount of Rs. 1,20,000/- but the same was modified by statement in paragraph 12 submitting that in fact the excess amount drawn by the petitioner was to the tune of Rs. 43,804,90. Admitted position is that in the entire exercise neither the petitioner was noticed nor was heard in the 3 matter and the recovery has been effected behind his back. It is also not the case of the respondent that the petitioner had any role to play in the so called excess amount drawn by him. In fact, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that following the pay fixation carried out by the respondents placed at Annexure-2, no recovery ought to have been effected by them. He further submits that the said fixation has never been withdrawn by the respondents and in fact he is drawing his pension on the said basis. He thus submits that once the position as placed at Annexure-2, has been accepted by the respondent authorities and who have also allowed the pension on the said basis, there was no occasion for recovery. Having regard to the circumstances set forth, the writ petition is allowed, the order of recovery as contained in Annexure-1 is set aside. The respondents are directed to remit back the entire recovered amount of the petitioner within three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Bibhash (Jyoti Saran, J. )