IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7265 of 2007 Sarjoo Prasad, son of Late Ram Prasad, resident of Phajalgang, Sahsaram, District-Rohtas, At present Saguna Mor, New Mainpura, District-Patna ------------- Petitioner Versus 1. Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna through its Chairman 2. Chairman, Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna 3. Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna 4. Member Finance, Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna 5. Deputy Director, Account PESU, Patna 6. Electrical Superintending Engineer, Bihar State Electricity Board, PESU( East ) Circle, Patna 7. Executive Engineer, Bihar State Electricity Board, PESU (East) Circle, Patna ------------------------------------ Respondents. ----------- 03 01-07-2011 Heard Sri Pramod Manbansh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vijay Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the Respondents/Bihar State Electricity Board. In the present writ petition, the petitioner has questioned the recovery made from his gratuity amount by the authority concerned and prayed for refund of the said amount. The petitioner retired as Accounts Assistant from Electricity Board on 01.02.1995. After retirement, all the retiral dues of the petitioner were paid by the Respondent authority. However, by Annexure-1 to the writ petition, a direction was issued for recovery of Rs.27, 820.27 from the gratuity amount, which was sanctioned to the tune of Rs.44, 137.50. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that after retirement without affording any opportunity to the petitioner, the said order was passed and secondly, it was not a case of suppression of fact by the petitioner, while fixing the pay of the petitioner by the superior authority. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if it was not a case of suppression or fraud committed on the part of the petitioner in 2 getting the pay scale enhanced, the authority concerned was not authorized to recover any amount in the garb of fixation of wrong pay. In this case, Respondent/ Bihar State Electricity Board has filed counter affidavit and in paragraph 5, a stand has been taken that the petitioner himself had admitted that he had made false representation which, according to the Respondents, is evident from Annexure-2 to the writ petition. I have gone through Annexure-2 to the writ petition. On perusal of Annexure-2 , which is a letter addressed by the petitioner to the Electrical Superintending Engineer, Patna, wherein he has stated that after noticing the fact that a person junior to him was getting higher pay scale , he had represented before the competent authority for removing the anomaly and thereafter pay was fixed by the authority concerned. In view of the statement made in Annexure-2 to the writ petition, the Court is of the opinion that such statement cannot be termed as misrepresentation or suppression of fact and on such ground it was not permissible for the authority concerned to pass order for recovery. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed with a direction to the Respondents to make payment of recovered amount of Rs.27, 820.27 along with admissible statutory interest. The writ petition stands allowed. NKS/- ( Rakesh Kumar, J. )