JUDGMENT: By Court Heard Sri D.K.Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. I.Sen Choudhary for the respondent J.S.E.B. 2. The petitioner in this writ application has prayed for quashing the order dated 26.11.2004 (Annexure-6) issued by the Secretary, Jharkhand State Electricity Board whereby the petitioner’s claim for refund of a sum of Rs. 1,06,592/-, which has been recovered from the petitioner’s gratuity amount, has been rejected and his further claim for fixing his pension on the basis of the last pay drawn, which is at Rs. 10,120/-, has also been rejected. 3. The petitioner’s contention is that he had retired from service under the respondents on 31.01.2002 in the post of Office Superintendent. Thereafter, he was paid his retiral dues but by virtue of the impugned order, a sum of Rs. 1,06,592/-has been deducted from his gratuity amount on the plea that the petitioner has drawn excess payment by way of increments from a date when he was not entitled for such payment. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of recovery has been passed illegally, arbitrarily and without issuing any prior notice to the petitioner and without affording him any opportunity of being heard. Referring to the Full Bench Judgement in the case of State of Jharkhand & Ors. Vs. Padmalochan Kalindi, 2008(1) J.C.R. Jhr (FB) 5, learned counsel submits that this issue has been settled in the case of Padmalochan Kalindi (Supra) whereby this Court has declared that any order of recovery of any amount from the retiral benefits of the retired employee without resorting to the procedure laid down under Rule 43(b) of the Pension Rules, is illegal. The petitioner, according to the learned counsel, is entitled to refund of the deducted amount. Learned counsel adds that the purported excess payment, even if made to the petitioner, it was not on account of any fault or lapse or misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner and this being so, neither can the recovery of any excess paid amount be made after four years of the retirement of the petitioner and neither can the respondents deny the petitioner the benefit of the last pay drawn by him for the purpose of fixing his pension. 5. The respondents, on the other hand, through their counter affidavit would deny and dispute the entire claim of the petitioner. Supporting the impugned order, Mrs. 5. The respondents, on the other hand, through their counter affidavit would deny and dispute the entire claim of the petitioner. Supporting the impugned order, Mrs. I. Sen Choudhary, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the petitioner was an Accountant and he was well conversant with the rules relating to the financial matters and though it was incumbent upon him to submit all relevant papers for the purpose of computing his pension at least three months prior to the date of his retirement, but he had intentionally delayed the submission of the requisite documents and had submitted the same long after his date of retirement, apparently with a view to frustrate any proceeding under Rule 43(b) of the Pension Rules. Learned counsel adds further that such act on the part of the petitioner amounts to misrepresentation and practicing fraud upon the respondent authorities. The error was detected only after receiving the documents from the petitioner for assessing his post-retiral benefits and upon such detection, the amount received in excess by the petitioner, was assessed and the same has been ordered to be recovered. Learned counsel adds further that the respondent authorities have the right to rectify the error as and when detected and the petitioner therefore cannot claim the benefit of the last pay drawn by him for the purpose of fixing his pension. 6. It is well settled that any amount, purported to have been paid in excess, can be recovered from the retired employee but subject to the condition that the employee is given a prior notice against the proposed recovery and is afforded adequate opportunity of being heard and the procedure as laid down under Rule 43(b) of the Pension Rules is duly followed. These procedures, having admittedly not been followed, the impugned order directing the recovery of the purported excess paid amount from the gratuity amount of the petitioner, is illegal and cannot be sustained. Accordingly, while allowing the prayer of the petitioner, the part of the impugned order whereby the recovery of the amount of Rs. 1,06,592/-has been ordered to be made, is hereby set aside. The respondents are directed to refund the amount of Rs. Accordingly, while allowing the prayer of the petitioner, the part of the impugned order whereby the recovery of the amount of Rs. 1,06,592/-has been ordered to be made, is hereby set aside. The respondents are directed to refund the amount of Rs. 1,06,592/-to the petitioner within one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order and if the amount is not refunded within the time stipulated, then the same shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of recovery and till the date of final payment. As regards the petitioner's claim for fixing of his pension on the basis of the last pay drawn, such claim shall always be subject to the right of the respondent authorities to rectify any error in computing the salary which was paid to the petitioner. However, before making any such correction, the respondents shall give notice to the petitioner and after affording an opportunity of being heard, shall take an appropriate decision on this issue within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. With these observations, this writ application is disposed of. Let a copy of this order be given to the counsel for the respondent