Judgment 1. In this writ petition, the petitioner is aggrieved on account of recovery of Rs. 44,737.63 paise from the gratuity payable to him. The said amount is sought to be recovered on three counts, namely, Rs. 31,745.60 on account of non-passing of Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination and payment of excess salary on wrong fixation due to stepping up of pay, Rs. 12,000/- on account of some discrepancy in the medical bill and Rs. 992.03 on account of non-adjustment of the scooter advance taken by him. 2. However, learned counsel for the petitioner agreed that so far adjustment of Rs. 992.03 is concerned, that stands settled by the Board by withdrawing the order for recovery. 3. With respect to the claim relating to medical bili, learned counsel for the parties submitted that the petitioner may be given liberty to produce the materials before the Board, whereafter the Board may consider and dispose it of on that basis. The said liberty is granted. 4. Thus, the only question now remains is with respect to recovery of Rs. 31,745.60 which has been sought to be made on account of non-passing of Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination and wrong fixation of salary. 5. In view of the law settled by the Apex court regarding recovery on account of non-passing of Hindi Noting &nd Drafting Examination, learned counsel for the Board failry agreed that the same is not permissible. However, with respect to wrong fixation of salary, he submitted that the same was done on account of the representation filed by the petitioner and thus, in view of the law considered by the Apex Court in the case of Bihar State Electricity Board V/s. Bijay Bhadur, reported in (2000) 10 SCC 99 , the same is recoverable and there is no infirmity in making the recovery. 6. I am unable to accept the said submission of the learned counsel for the Board. In the case of Bihar State Electricity Board V/s. Bijay Bhadur (supra) the Apex Court has concurrred with the view taken in the case of Sahib Ram V/s. The State of Haryana, reported in 1995 Supp (1) SCC 18, in which the Apex Court held that it is only on account of misrepresentation or fraud that recovery is permissible. 7. In the case of Bihar State Electricity Board V/s. Bijay Bhadur (supra) the Apex Court has concurrred with the view taken in the case of Sahib Ram V/s. The State of Haryana, reported in 1995 Supp (1) SCC 18, in which the Apex Court held that it is only on account of misrepresentation or fraud that recovery is permissible. 7. It is not the case of the Board that any such finding has been recorded on enquiry by the competent authority against the petitioner. In that view of the matter, in my opinion, the Board is not entitled to recover the said amount. 8. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed with a direction to the Board to pay Rs. 31,745.60 paise to the petitioner within one week, failing which the Financial Controller shall be liable to pay a cost of Rs. 1,000/- (one thousand) to the petitioner and the petitioner will be at liberty to file two pages affidavit for revival of this writ petition and taking appropriate action. 9. However, this order shali not come in the way of the Board from fixing the future pension of the petitioner as per the aforementioned pay fixation and the petitioner is also given liberty to agitate his grievance, if any, against the same before the appropriate forum.