SHRI SHEO RATAN PRASAD Vs. BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY

JUDGEMENT

(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. Petitioner 'scase 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, petitioner 'spay 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. 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.

(3.) 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 petitioner 'schallenge. The counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents only states that as per Board 'srule 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.