MUZAFFARPUR Vs. BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) AFTER the petitioner superannuated on 31.11.2003 from the post of Head Clerk under the respondent -Bihar State Electricity Board vide order contained in Annexure -1 dated 13.1.2004 as well order dated 31.3.2004 contained in Annexure -2 the salary of the petitioner was revised and subsequently not only his pension was fixed at a lower scale but even certain recovery was ordered to be made. Petitioner challenges the orders to be arbitrary for more than one reasons stating that the same has been done after his retirement without any notice or show cause to him and secondly that the benefit of 12% increase in the salary was granted by the respondents on their sweet will and there was neither any fraud or misrepresentation in this regard. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on a decision of a Division Bench dated 1 September, 2000 reported in the case of Mundrika Devi V/s. Bihar State Electricity Board & Others (L.P.A. No.1241 of 2002). The Division Bench had this to say in paragraph nos. 3 and 4 of the decision as follows: - "3. In the instant case, it is not the contention of the Board that in the matter of alleged mistake, which resulted in excess payment, the appellant had any role to play. The excess payment, if any, is also not due to mistake in pay fixation, grant of increment or the like leading to wrong calculation of salary of the employee. The mistake is also not at the ministerial level. Respondent -Board, in the instant case, after superannuation of the appellant, opined that pay protection given to the appellant, his promotion to selection grade and grant of 12% extra emolument was improper and incorrect; and because of improper and incorrect decision, excess payment has been made to the appellant, which is recoverable. It is not the contention of the respondent -Board that grant of any of them was not by the authority authorized to grant the same. It is the contention of the appellant -Board that the grants themselves were not permissible by law and accordingly, any payment made on the basis of such grants is recoverable. 4. As we are bound by the judgment rendered by the Full Bench of this Court and inasmuch as the decision of the Full Bench, as quoted above, squarely applies to the present case, we have no other option but to allow the appeal and set aside the judgment and order under appeal, which we do hereby, and at the same time allow the writ petition by directing the Board to fix the retiral/terminal dues of the appellant, without taking note of the contention of the Board, as contained in its order dated 3rd April, 2000, which admittedly came into play subsequent to superannuation of the appellant."

(3.) IN view of the settled decision in law the impugned order in so far as it relates to recovery of the sum of money under the head of excess payment of salary due to wrong fixation is quashed.