IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9876 of 2009 LAKASHMI NARAYAN SINGH, son of Late Prasad Singh, Residentof Village-Makhdumpur, P.S.-Digha, District-Patna. ……Petitioner Versus 1. The Bihar State Electricity Board through its Chairman, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 2. Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 3. Joint Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 4. Financial Controller, Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 5. General Manager/Chief Engineer Central, Bihar Area Electricity Board, Patna. ……..Respondents. ----------- For the petitioner : Ashok Kumar Singh, Adv. : Dr. Rajendra Prasad, Adv. For the Board : Anand Kumar Ojha, Adv. ----------- 3. 14.10.2009 The petitioner retired on 26.02.2006 from the Bihar State Electricity Board in the Central Bihar Area Electricity Board at Patna. His retiral dues were duly sanctioned including payment of gratuity but when the gratuity was being paid, on 20.08.2008 he noticed that he showed a deduction of Rs. 52, 360/-. As no amount is permissible to be deducted from gratuity in view of the strict provision of Payment of Gratuity Act petitioner made enquiries. Having not been disclosed, fully incorrect reason for this deduction, he approached this Court. A counter affidavit has been filed by the Bihar - 2 - State Electricity Board in which it has been stated that after the petitioner retired accounts were scrutinized for the purposes of ascertaining the retiral dues. It is in course of such ascertainment that in 2007 it was discovered that way back in 1991 petitioner was granted an extra increment which was not due. It became due only in 1999. Thus the extra amount paid in between the said period that is 1991 to 1999 became recoverable. The exact calculation thereof was then done on 04.02.2008 and as till then gratuity had not been paid, the amount was deducted from the payable gratuity and the net amount paid. Having heard the parties and considered the matter, in my view, no such action can be taken in the facts of the present case. It is nowhere stated in the counter affidavit that petitioner was in anywhere responsible for this wrong calculation made as far back as in the year 1991. He has so specifically asserted in his writ application which fact is not denied in the counter affidavit. For a mistake committed by the Respondents themselves almost two decades back, the petitioner after retirement is being penalized by deduction on the alleged ground of correction of mistake. In my view, right to correct a mistake is one but the relief consequent thereto is altogether another consideration. It is well settled that if - 3 - as a consequence of this correction inequitable situation is created then correction will not be permitted. Making recovery after retirement on the plea of correction can not be but said to be inequitable for no fault of the petitioner at this late stage of his life his retiral benefits are being severely curtailed and that too in defiance of provision of Payment of Gratuity Act which prohibits any deduction of gratuity. I can only list out series of recent decision of this Court and of the Apex Court in similar situation wherein under similar circumstances recoveries were quashed and Respondents restrained from taking any action. Those are the cases of Ghulam Hasnain versus the State of Bihar since reported in 2009(2) PLJR 675, Shabbir Alam versus Bihar State Electricity Board since reported in 2009(2) PLJR 729, Bhola Ram versus Bihar State Electricity Board since reported in 2009(2) PLJR 948, Babulal Jain versus State of M.P. & Ors since reported in 2007(6) SCC 180, Union of India versus S.R. Dhingra & Ors reported in 2008(2) SCC 229, Union of India & another versus Narendra Singh since reported in 2008(2) SCC 750 and Syed Abdul Qadir & Ors versus the State of Bihar & Ors since reported in 2009(2) PLJR-74(S.C.) Thus in view of this position, in my view, the recovery as made is held to be wrong, illegal and arbitrary. Respondents are directed to make the said amount to the - 4 - petitioner within a period of two months from today. With the aforesaid directions, the writ application is allowed. Shageer (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J)