ORDER Heard Sri Ajey Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Dharmeshwar Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of all the Respondents/ Bihar State Electricity Board. 2. The petitioner, while invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has prayed for quashing of an office order, contained in Memo no.1103 dated 17.08.2005 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) issued by Respondent no.6/ Chief Engineer, Department of Transmission Zone -2, Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna, whereby the petitioner’s pay was reduced and re-fixed. It has further been prayed for quashing of consequential order i.e. order contained in Annexure-6 to the writ petition, whereby while sanctioning Rs. 2,85,533/- as gratuity amount, it was directed to recover Rs. 1,76,879/-, which was purported to be recoverable amount on account of excess pay drawn by the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner retired with effect from 31.01.2005 from the post of Office Superintendent, Special Grade, Transmission Zone-II, Muzaffarpur. Since even after retirement, he was not being paid his retrial dues, he had approached this Court by filing a writ petition vide C.W.J.C. No. 5329 of 2005 and, thereafter, all other retiral dues was paid to the petitioner. However, at belated stage by order contained in Annexures 5 and 6 to the writ petition, a decision was taken to recover the amount on the plea of excess pay drawn by the petitioner. It has been indicated that virtually amount of Rs. 1,76,879/- has already been recovered from the gratuity amount of the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner had not suppressed any fact enabling the authority concerned to fix the pay of the petitioner at higher scale. It was argued that since it was not a case of suppression of fact or making misrepresentation, the authority concerned even after retirement of the petitioner was not authorized to pass an order of recovery of excess amount from the retiral dues that, too, from the amount of gratuity of the petitioner. He further submits that in any event the order was passed without affording any opportunity to the petitioner. Had the petitioner been granted opportunity to explain his case, he would have categorically explained to the authority that the amount was not to be recovered. He further submits that in any event the order was passed without affording any opportunity to the petitioner. Had the petitioner been granted opportunity to explain his case, he would have categorically explained to the authority that the amount was not to be recovered. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the order impugned is violative of principles of natural justice and, as such, same is fit to be quashed and the Respondent authorities are required to refund the recovered amount along with admissible interest. 4. Sri Dharmeshwar Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondents/Bihar State Electricity Board has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner. He submits that the law regarding recovery of excess amount paid to an employee/ officer due to bona fide error has already set at rest by a Full Bench of this Court, reported in 2007 (3) PLJR 398 ; Ram Binod Singh Vs. Bihar State Electricity Board. According to Sri Mishra, the auditor of the Board had examined the case of the petitioner and it was detected that earlier several mistakes were committed. He submits that even it was found that earlier the petitioner was entitled to higher scale but he was given lower scale; this has also been corrected by the authority concerned. Similarly, it was detected that on 05.11.1973, while the petitioner was promoted to the post of Head Clerk, his pay scale was incorrectly fixed as Rs.588/- and it has been corrected as Rs. 570/- . In the year, 1978, he was given double pay fixation, which was incorrect, wrong and contrary to the standing order of the Board and, as such, aforesaid discrepancies were removed and finally Annexures 5 and 6 to the writ petition were issued for recovery of the excess amount paid to the petitioner i.e. from the amount of gratuity of the petitioner. He has further argued that even as per Bihar Pension Rules, the petitioner had given undertaking that in case of excess amount received by him earlier, same can be recovered from the retiral dues of the petitioner and, as such, according to Sri Mishra, learned counsel for the Bihar State Electricity Board, in view of his own undertaking, he is not allowed to assail the order of recovery from the gratuity amount. 5. Besides hearing the parties, I have also perused the materials available on record. 5. Besides hearing the parties, I have also perused the materials available on record. Fact remains that the petitioner retired in the month of January, 2005 and till date no step was taken by the authority concerned to examine as to whether his pay scale was rightly or incorrectly fixed earlier. From own stand of the Respondents as taken in the counter affidavit, it is evident that after retirement of the petitioner, the auditor detected a defect in fixation of pay of the petitioner which had occurred in the year 1973, which was tried to be corrected in view of auditor’s report. Subsequently, an error was detected in the year 1988 regarding fixation of pay in favour of the petitioner. Even though, it was error, as per the Respondents, same were detected long back in the year 1973 and 1978, the authority concerned earlier never took any step to make correction. Only after the petitioner approached this Court with his grievance for directing the Respondents to pay his retiral dues, it appears that steps were taken to harass the petitioner one way or the other and this was the reason that impugned orders were issued without issuance of notice to the petitioner to explain his case. It was a glaring case of disobedience to principles of natural justice. Even after retirement of the petitioner, the authority had decided to make recovery from the gratuity amount in the garb of making correction. It was prime duty of the Respondents to give an opportunity to the petitioner to explain his case. Admittedly, no opportunity was provided to the petitioner for explaining his case and, as such, the Court is of the opinion that orders impugned are violative of principles of natural justice and same are not sustainable in the eye of law. Accordingly, both orders are hereby set aside. The Respondents are directed to refund the amount, which was recovered from the head of gratuity amount of the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. However, the Respondents would be at liberty to take steps, if they consider that amount is recoverable, in accordance with law after giving full opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 6. With above observation and direction, the writ petition stands allowed.