IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14610 of 2009 ISHWARI PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, RETIRED ACCOUNTANT, NALANDA ELECTRIC SUPPLLY CIRCLE, S/O LATE HEMRAJ MAHTO, RESIDENT OF VILL DEVI SARAI, P.O. MOGRA, VIA- BIHARSHARIF, DISTT- NALANDA Versus 1. THE BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD THROUGH ITS SECRETARY VIDYUT BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA 2. THE FINANCIAL CONTROLLER NO.1, BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD VIDYUT BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA 3. THE JOINT SECRTARY, SRI N.P. YADAV , BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VIDYUT BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA 4. THE GENERAL MANAGER- CUM- CHIEF ENGINEER CENTRAL AREA ELECTRICITY BOARD, SERPENTINE ROAD , PATNA 5. THE ELECTRICAL SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, NALANDA ELECTRIC SUPPLY CIRCLE AT+P.O+DISTT- BIHARSHARIF **** 6 19.03.2010 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner and the respondent-Board. The grievance of the petitioner is that upon his superannuation on 31st May, 2008 from the post of Accountant under the respondent no.5 while settling the retiral dues a sum of Rs. 1,33,198/- was directed to be recovered due to pay anomaly on the orders of the Joint Secretary of the Board vide memo no. 692 dated 02.07.2009 as contained in Annexure-1 and subsequently the aforesaid amount was recovered as well. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the recovery of the aforesaid amount on so called pay anomaly is not correct. Notwithstanding the above in no manner the petitioner can be held responsible for fixing the pay scale. More so, at no point of time the petitioner misled or misrepresented the authority for fixing the pay - 2 - scale on which the salary was paid to the petitioner till the date of his retirement. It is further submitted that after the retirement no amount could had been recovered from the gratuity in absence of any misrepresentation or fraud practiced by the petitioner upon the authority concerned in fixing the pay scale. It is also contended that the petitioner represented his grievances by filing representation as contained in Annexure-3, however, the same has remained unconsidered till date and the petitioner is kept deprived of the aforesaid amount of Rs. 1,33,198/-. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent- Board submits that the matter needs to be verified from the records. In the above circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for expeditious disposal of the pending claims as highlighted in this writ application, petitioner proposes to file a fresh representation before the respondent no.4 with a copy to the respondent no.3. In such view of the matter, in case such representation stating details of the grievances that no amount can be recovered from the gratuity after his retirement on account of the alleged pay anomaly specially when there was no fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner which has been settled by - 3 - various decisions of this Court is filed by the petitioner within a period of six weeks from today along with the certified copy of the present order as also the copy of the relevant documents, if any, in support of the claim, the grievances of the petitioner raised in the representation shall be considered in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within a period of four months on receipt of such representation. If the representation of the petitioner finds favour, necessary immediate order shall be issued for refund of the aforesaid amount with statutory interest preferably within a period of two months thereafter. However, if the representation is not accepted the same shall be disposed of by a reasoned order which shall be communicated to the petitioner by post under registered cover. The writ application stands disposed of with the above observations/directions. Manish/- ( Shailesh Kumar Sinha,J.)