GOBARDHAN SINGH CHOUDHARY Vs. JHARKHAND STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was posted as Assistant Accountant in the Jharkhand State Electricity Board. Petitioner was paid allowances payable to the employee, who has passed the Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination during the period 16.07.1979 to 20.11.1994. In fact, petitioner has passed the Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination only on 20.11.1994. The Electricity Board has passed order (Annexure 1 to the writ petition) dated 12.05.2004 for recovery of the excess amount paid to the petitioner for the period from 16.07.1979 to 20.11.1994 saying during this period, petitioner was not entitled for the allowances, payable only to those employees, who had passed Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner preferred the writ petition before this Court being W. P. (S) No. 3413 of 2004, which was disposed of by this Court on 22.07.2004 with a direction to the petitioner to make a fresh representation before the General Manager cum Chief Engineer, J. S. E. B. , Dhanbad, thereon Respondent No. 2 shall pass fresh order in accordance with law.

(2.) Pursuant to the order dated 22.07.2004, petitioner had submitted representation (Annexure 4 to the writ petition) before the General Manager cum Chief Engineer, J. S. E. B. , Dhanbad. The General Manager cum Chief Engineer, J. S. E. B. , Dhanbad, has rejected the representation vide impugned order dated 23.02.2006 by observing that petitioner (employee) was aware of the notification that allowance was payable to only those employees, who have passed Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination. Therefore, petitioner, who could pass such examination only on 20.11.1994, was not entitled for the allowances for the intervening period with effect from 16.07.1979 to 20.11.1994. I have heard Mr. Santosh Kumar Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Rajan Raj, assisted by Mr. Rohit, learned counsel for the Electricity Board.

(3.) Having perused the entire record, I am of the firm opinion that there is no material on record to show that petitioner has played any fraud, misrepresentation or role in getting his salary bills passed. Even in the impugned judgment, there is no specific finding that petitioner has ever played any fraud, misrepresentation or role in getting his salary bills passed.