Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1908 (PAT)

Shri Sheo Ratan Prasad v. Bihar State Electricity

2007-12-17

AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI

body2007
Judgment 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioner retired on 28.2.2005 from the post of Accountant. He was last posted under the Electrical Executive Engineer, Electric Supply Division, Sherghati. Petitioners case is that he has only drawn his pay-scale and his perks which were authorized by the respondents during the course of his service. However, after his retirement based on an audit report generated by the respondents, petitioners pay scale was refixed with effect from 1.4.1977. A reduction was made in the last pay drawn and an order for recovery of excess amount paid was also made. All this is reflected from Annexure-1 which has been brought on record. Subsequently, vide an order dated 8.7.2005 contained in Annexure-2 a deduction of Rs. 98,431.30 was made from the gratuity payable to the petitioner. Petitioner is aggrieved by this order contained in Annexure-2. 3. The basic submission of the petitioner is that this order having civil consequence have been passed against him without any opportunity of show cause or hearing. Not only this, the respondents have unilaterally unsettled a settled position after more than 30 years. He further submits that it is not even the stand of the respondents in the counter affidavit that this pay scale granted to him was obtained or manoeuvred by him during the period of service under the respondents. If these are the stated factual position in the case then according to him the action of the respondents now effecting this deduction and refixing his pay-scale is a totally illegal and arbitrary decision which cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-Electricity Board has filed a counter affidavit today. They have taken more than two years to respond to the writ application of the petitioner. The effort of two years is a cryptic counter affidavit, where nothing has been stated to decisively rebut the petitioners challenge. The counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents only states that as per Boards rule certain increments were added to the pay scale of the petitioner much earlier than he was entitled to. This is why the petitioner wrongly drew his salary over the years. The counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents only states that as per Boards rule certain increments were added to the pay scale of the petitioner much earlier than he was entitled to. This is why the petitioner wrongly drew his salary over the years. They further state that when his service book was finally examined by the Audit Department after his retirement this anomaly was found and steps for re-fixation of his pay as well as recovery has been effected. According to them there is nothing wrong in this decision of theirs. Counsel for Board further submits that these are cases where public money and public fund is involved and it cannot be permitted to be squandered and taken away by an employee to which he was never entitled to. 5. The submissions made on behalf of the respondents have to be judged in the light of a recent Full Bench decision rendered in the case of Ram Binod Singh V/s. Bihar State Electricity Board (F.B.), 2007 2 PUR 398, as well as the two Division Benches, whose views have already been approved by the said Full Bench. Every case will have to be decided on its own merits and based on the pleadings of the parties. Only platitudes may not be enough for the respondents to get out of the tricky situation which are creation of their own and not of the petitioner. 6. The basic fact not in dispute in the present case is that the petitioner was granted this benefit of increments way back in the year 1974-75 itself. Petitioner was allowed to draw this pay for more than 30 years. There is no whisper with regard to the fact that this benefit was manipulated by the petitioner. The question which now arises is, can a Court allow a settled position like this to be reopened after 30 years merely because there are inefficient people manning the Board who have not done their job for years? Ultimately the effect and the financial implication may be on the Board but the question will have to be answered from within the Board as to why was this situation allowed to prevail for decades. Ultimately the effect and the financial implication may be on the Board but the question will have to be answered from within the Board as to why was this situation allowed to prevail for decades. Some serious heart searching will have to be done by the senior officials in this regard before they can get back on a Class III and Class IV employee after his retirement on such issues at such belated stage. 7. This Court, in the given facts and circumstances as well as the stated position that an order of recovery has been made unilaterally without any opportunity given to the petitioner in this regard, is inclined to interfere with the order passed in Annexure-2. The same is accordingly quashed. The respondents are directed to refund this money already deducted from the gratuity of the petitioner forthwith. 8. In view of the fact that the petitioner has not seriously contested the stated position that the increment given to him was the correct position and was in accordance with the Rules this Court is not inclined to interfere with that part of the order where his last pay drawn has been refixed and pension decided accordingly. 9. The writ application is allowed to the extent indicated above.