IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11562 of 2005 SURENDRA KUMAR VERMA Versus BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND OTHERS. ----------- 4. 5.5.2010. Heard Mr. R.K. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ram Kishore Singh, learned counsel for the State. The petitioner superannuated from the post of Office Superintendent with effect from 30.6.2003. After his retirement and during the course of processing of his retiral benefits the respondents chose to issue an order of refixation of his pay scale w.e.f. 1.4.1975, vide letter dated 23.3.2004 (Annexure-4) and thereby the pay of the petitioner has been reduced. The respondents proceeding further have concluded that the petitioner by reason of incorrect pay fixation, has drawn excess pay and which is to be recovered. Following the said decision, an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- has been recovered from his gratuity amount vide stipulation contained in the order dated 9.10.2003 (Annexure-2). Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said exercise has been carried out by the authorities without any show cause notice or hearing being given to the petitioner and thus the 2 exercise and order is clearly in violation of the principle of natural justice. Learned counsel for the Board, relying upon a Circular bearing No.515 dated 7.5.1976, and Board’s Office Order No.3922 dated 12.9.1978, submits that the pay protection given to the petitioner was not in accordance with law and which has been subsequently rectified vide order dated 23.3.2004 as contained in Annexure-4. Learned counsel for the Board, with reference to the statement made in para-7 of the counter affidavit, submits that the audit section of the respondent Board, after scrutiny of the papers of the petitioner, came to a conclusion that the grant of selection grade to the petitioner on 3.4.1976 was made after adding 12 % benefits and the said grant of 12 % additional benefit was again provided to the petitioner at the time of his promotion to the post of Head Clerk. Learned counsel for the Board thus submits that the grant of the said benefits to the petitioner was clearly in violation of the Circular No.515 dated 7.5.1976 which specifically provided that recovery would be effected from such 3 of the Workmen, who had been granted such benefits twice, once in the selection grade and again at the time of promotion, in twelve equal instalments or at the rate of RS.60/- per month. Learned counsel for the petitioner in response to the contention advanced by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Board, submits that the Circulars of the Board issued in this regard, including the Circular dated 7.5.1976, has been considered by a Bench of this court in a judgment reported in 2010 (1) PLJR 347 (Satya Narayan Lal Vrs. The B.S.E.B. and others). The bench considering the issue held that the grant of 12 % benefits at the time of promotion was provided under Office Order No.456 dated 19.11.1974 and continued until it was restricted under the Standing Order No.515 dated 7.5.1976 only in relation to the Workmen. But the anamolous situation was removed by Standing Order No.125 dated 7.5.1983 effectively rescinding the Standing Order No.515 dated 7.5.1976 and restoring the Office Order dated 19.11.1974. It was thus held that deprivation of the said benefit to the Workmen alone between the period 1976 to 1983, would not be permissible as it would be a hostile 4 discrimination as also grossly arbitrary. Following the bench decision aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to remit the recovered amount to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Ahk (Jyoti Saran, J.)