Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1320 (PAT)

Suraj Singh v. Bihar State Electricity Board

2013-11-21

AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI

body2013
ORDER Heard learned counsel for the parties. I. A. No. 5772 of 2013 Interlocutory Application is allowed in the circumstances that after filing of the writ application Annexure-6, dated 30th of March, 1999 had come to the knowledge of the petitioner, by virtue of which, certain deductions from the gratuity of the petitioner was ordered to be made on the ground that the petitioner had been given wrong benefit of super-selection-grade w.e.f. 08.10.1990. 2. Submission of the counsel for the petitioner is that the benefit of such promotion or super-selection-grade accrued in his favour on the basis of the various standing orders in play at the relevant time. The first standing order in this regard is Standing Order No. 561/EB, dated 01.07.1977. Paragraph 3 of the standing order, according to the petitioner, was the basis for consideration and grant of promotion since he came within the ambit of 20 per cent of the total post. He further got benefit of standing order, dated 01.09.1988, Annexure-3 to the supplementary affidavit. Here again paragraph 3 applied to the case of the petitioner. After the grant of super-selection-grade, petitioner drew the advantage of such promotion and superannuated on 31.08.1998. 3. Learned counsel submits that if an amendment was brought about and a new standing order was notified on 03.10.1989, the same was not retrospective. It does not have the effect of taking away the benefit which had already accrued to a person on the basis of previous standing orders, noted above. Since the benefit in the case of the petitioner was granted on 01.08.1988 and the new amended standing order came into play on 03.10.1989, there was no occasion to pass Annexure-6, effecting recovery. 4. Yet another submission on behalf of the petitioner is that the impugned order could not have been passed after the retirement of the petitioner, when the benefit of promotion and the pay-scale was given by the respondents without any misrepresentation or fraud, having been played by the petitioner. If there was some confusion with regard to the entitlement of the petitioner on the various standing orders of the Board, the necessary rectification ought to have been done after giving a notice to the petitioner, while he was still in service. 5. If there was some confusion with regard to the entitlement of the petitioner on the various standing orders of the Board, the necessary rectification ought to have been done after giving a notice to the petitioner, while he was still in service. 5. Counsel representing the erstwhile Board submits that recovery had to be effected, because petitioner has drawn excess amount of pay, because he was wrongly given super-selection-grade at the relevant time, contrary to the last of the standing orders. Not only this, he had also given in writing that the above amount may be adjusted against his gratuity. The said letter is Annexure-L to the reply on behalf of the respondents to the supplementary affidavit. 6. The legal question, which is required to be decided, is whether the impugned order, contained in Annexure-6 can be justified, in the time-frame, when the said decision had been taken. The law on this issue is well settled that if the petitioner did not beget the benefit of a higher pay-scale due any mischief played by him, then no recovery is required to be effected after his retirement, more so when corrective steps were not taken at an appropriate relevant time. Petitioner had drawn advantage for almost 10 years before his retirement and after retirement, such an order amounts to punishment which cannot be passed without taking any appropriate measures in this regard. 7. The reason for passing Annexure-6, therefore, does not stand legal reason as well as the various decisions of this Court on such issue, including the Full Bench Decision rendered in the case of Ram Binod Singh vs. Bihar State Electricity Board, reported in 2007(3)PLJR 393. 8. The writ application is allowed. Annexure-6 is quashed, irrespective of the letter, which has been obtained from the petitioner more out of compulsion and coercion to settle the retiral dues of the petitioner, since he was a low paid employee and did not have bargaining power. 9. The respondents are directed to release the entire gratuity without any deductions in favour of the petitioner, preferably within a period of three months from the date of production/communication of a copy of this Order. 10. Other benefits, including arrears, revision etc. will also be worked out within the same time-frame.