MADAN MOHAN PRASAD Vs. BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition the petitioner is aggrieved by the Pension Payment Order, contained in Annexure 1, whereby, according to the petitioner, his pension has been fixed at a reduced rate and the order dated 12.3.1998, contained in Annexure 2, whereby a sum of Rs. 40,183.60 paise has been sought to be recovered on account of alleged excess pay drawn due to wrong fixation of pay from the D.C.R. Gratuity payable to him.

(2.) IT was been submitted on behalf of the respondent Board that the petitioner was paid excess amount due to wrong fixation of pay on the representation made by him. As such, there is no infirmity in the impugned orders. In this regard learned counsel for the Board has referred to the statement made in paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit from which it appears that the petitioner filed a presentation requesting therein to remove the anomaly in his pay as his junior Shri Jagdish Prasad was getting higher pay than him and consequently, wide Office Order No. 287 dated 14.5.1984 his pay was fixed and he received it accordingly.

(3.) HOWEVER , it has rightly been submitted by the learned counsel for the Board that there is no infirmity in the Pension Payment Order, whereby the pension of the petitioner has been fixed on the basis of the pay admissible to him on the date of retirement. In the case of Smt. Sushma Prasad vs. The State of Bihar and others (C.W.J.C. No. 10173 of 1998, disposed of on 29.7.1999 : 2000(2) PUR 96) this Court accepted the submission on behalf of the State that the decision of the Apex Court is only that the authority shall not make recovery of the alleged excess payment under the said circumstances, but not that the pensionary benefits cannot be fixed on the basis of the pay admissible to the employee concerned.