IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1194 of 2011 Dwarika Nath Upadhaya S/o late Shiv Parsan Upadhyaya R/o Mohalla- Indrapuri (West Supriya Cinema), P.S. Bettiah Town, Dist-West Champaran. ---Petitioner. Versus 1. The Bank Of India through its C.G.M. Patna Circle. 2. The Chief General Manager, Patna Circle, S.B.I. Local Head Office, West Gandhi Maidan,Patna. 3. The Assistant General Manager (P.P.G. Dept.) S.B.I. Local Head office, Patna Circle, West Gandhi Maidan, Patna. 4. The Assistant General Manager (H.R. Dept.). S.B.I. Local Head office, Patna circle, West Gandhi Maidan, Patna. 5. The Assistant General Manager (Admin.).S.B.I. Zonal office, Muzaffarpur. 6. The Regional Manager, region –V, S.B.I. Zonal office, Muzaffarpur. 7. The Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Gopalganj. 8. The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, A.D.B. Bettiah, West Champaran. 9. The Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Bettiah, West Champaran. ---Respondents. For the petitioner : Mr. Dev Kumar Pandey, Advocate. For the S.B.I. : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh, Advocate. ----------- 03 30.06.2011 Petitioner has filed the present application seeking a direction upon the respondents to sanction differential arrear comprising the interest accruing upon the delayed payment of Terminal dues to the petitioner. A further prayer has been made to sanction the recovered amount of ex- gratia payment of Rs. 24892.00 (Rs. Twenty Four thousand eight hundred and ninety two only). A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. Petitioner was serving in the clerical cadre of State Bank of India (for short the ‘Bank’). Bank introduced a scheme called Exit Option Scheme for the clerical and subordinate cadre employees of the Bank to mitigate the frustration and de-motivation of the employees of the 2 aforesaid cadre due to lack of career prospect(s). The scheme was subject to a set of terms and conditions. The petitioner opted under the said scheme. Accordingly, he was paid the benefits payable on account of such request made under the said scheme. It appears that entire amount payable under the scheme was/were paid to and received by the petitioner in the year 2007. On detecting mistake in calculating the amount payable as ex-gratia, the respondents by an order recovered/adjusted the excess payment made thereunder. The said order is not under challenge. It appears from perusal of counter affidavit that entire amount payable to the petitioner was/were paid in the year 2007. Paragraph no.16 sets out details of interest payable to the petitioner on account of delayed payment of gratuity and provident fund. This Court does not find any illegality in such calculation. Secondly, the issue which could have been raised soon after receipt of the payment i.e. in the year 2007 was not raised at least for 04 years. Now the petitioner in the present petition seeks to challenge calculation of interest and recovery/adjustment of amount of payment made under head ‘ex- gratia’. On this score also this Court would be justified in refusing to invoke its extra ordinary writ jurisdiction. The application is dismissed. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J. )