IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13474 of 2004 MOSTT.INDU DEVI W/O LATE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA R/O VILLAGE, PO & P.S-LAKHANOUR,DISTT- MADHUBANI--PETITIONER Versus 1. THE BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, VIDYUT BHAWAN BAILEY ROAD PATNA 2. THE FINANCE CONTROLLER(I) AUDIT SECTION BSEB,PATNA 3. THE ASSISTANT CONTGROLLER OF AUDIT BSEB, PATNA 4. THE KOSHI ELECTRIC SUPPLY AREA BOARD, THROUGH ITS GENERAL MANAGER, SAHARSA,DISTT- SAHARSA- RESPONDENTS. ----------- 13 22.1.2009 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Certain amount is sought to be deducted after refixation of pay scale of the husband of the petitioner after more than six years of his death in harness. Submission of learned counsel appearing for the present petitioner who happens to be the wife of the employee that the action of the respondents is not only arbitrary but contrary to law laid down in this regard. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on a recent decision of the Division Bench in the case of Mundrika Devi v. Bihar State Electricity Board & others (LPA No. 1241 of 2002) “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 - 2 - 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.” The case of the petitioner being covered by the ratio of the decision rendered in the above decision as well as the full Bench, this writ application is allowed. Annexures 1 and 2 are quashed. Direction is hereby issued upon the respondent to finalise the family pension of the petitioner as if no refixation of pay has been made in terms of annexures 1 and 2. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J.)