IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10254 of 2000 Smt. Kalawati Devi, W/O Late Rajendra Prasad Sinha (deceased) Aged 65 years. Resident of Hello Chiman Communication, Ramnath Sharma Marg, Vidyanagar, Gopalganj-841428, District-Siwan. …………Petitioner. Versus 1. The Bihar State Electricity Board through its Secretary, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 2. General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, Tirhut Area, Electricity Board, Muzaffarpur. 3. Sri Swan Mukherjee, Joint Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 4. The Electrical Superintending Engineer, Electrical Circle,Chapra. 5. The Electrical Executive Engineer, Exectric Supply Division, Gopalganj. ………………………………………Respondents. ----------- 5. 11. 01. 2010. Mr. R. K. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Vijay Kumar Verma, Junior Counsel to Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh, learned counsel representing the Electricity Board are present. The writ petition had been filed for quashing the impugned Order No. 191, dated 30. 09. 99 (Annexure-1) passed by the Respondent No. 3 Joint Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board, ordering for recovery of the excess amount paid to the original petitioner by reasons of refixation of his pay. The facts in brief is that original writ petitioner was appointed as Correspondence Clerk and he joined on 09. 05. 1963. The petitioner was promoted to the post of Head Clerk on 12. 04. 1977 and granted Selection Grade in the cadre of Head Clerk on 20. 07. 1977. The petitioner superannuated from the said post with effect from 31. 05. 1998. Just after retirement of the petitioner the impugned order 2 dated 30. 09. 1999 (Annexure-1) came to be passed holding that pay-scale of the original petitioner had not been correctly fixed and thus, he was liable to refund the excess amount drawn by him by reasons of incorrect pay-fixation. During pendency of this petition original petitioner expired and was substituted by his widow. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that legality or illegality in the pay-scale is by reason of interpretation given by the authorities of the Respondent- Board to its various circular which are not correct and that the scale of the petitioner was correctly fixed. He submits that Respondent-Authorities are not justified in initiating the proceedings against the petitioner, more so, for the reason that they do not allege any fraud against the petitioner or misrepresentation coupled with the fact that the petitioner stands superannuated. He submits that the entire issue revolves around the interpretation of the different circular of the Board. Learned Counsel in support of his contention, relied upon a decision of this Court vide order dated 21. 08. 2008 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 7882 of 2002 (Mahendra Mandal Vrs. Bihar State Electricity Board and others) wherein this Court in identical situation and following the Full Bench judgment of Ram Binod Singh reported in 2007 (3) P.L.J.R. 398 had been pleased to allow the writ petition directing the authorities of the Board to refund the payment recovered from 3 the petitioner’s gratuity. The judgment of the Single Judge was confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 01. 05. 2009 passed in L.P.A.No. 989/08. Learned counsel thus submits that the case of this petitioner is identical to the case of the aforesaid petitioner. From the pleadings placed on the record of the proceedings, this much is clear that this petitioner had no role to play in the matter pay-fixation of pay-scale and thus the grounds set out by the Respondent-Authorities of the Board relying upon the stipulation made in the circular is neither just nor reasonable. Having regard to the circumstances that the petitioner had no role to play in the matter of fixation of his pay-scale, which was done at the ministerial level and its correctness or incorrectness was being tested in the backdrop of the interpretations of the circular of the Board, the Respondent-authorities can not indict the petitioner nor can be permitted to carry out proceedings of recovery pursuant to impugned order placed at Annexure-1 and that also much after the retirement of the original petitioner. The matter however, stand concluded under the order of the Court passed in C.W.J.C. No. 7882/02 and affirmed in L.P.A. No. 989/08 (Supra) Thus following the decision(s) of this Court in 4 C.W.J.C. No 7882/02 as confirmed in L.P.A. No. 989/08 the writ petition is allowed and the order of recovery dated 30.09.99, as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition is set aside. The Respondent-Board is directed to make refund of the amount of Rs. 65,776.50 to the petitioner which was deducted from the Gratuity amount of the original petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt/ production of a this order. m.p. (Jyoti Saran,J.)