SHABBIR ALAM Vs. BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A large number of writ petitions have been coming up before this Court and continue unabated in spite of a large number of reported judgments on the question whether or not money benefits granted to an employee while in service can be recovered from him after an appreciable length of time, particularly from his post-retirement benefits. Because of conflict of judgments rendered by Courts earlier on this point, it has become increasingly difficult for Single Judge Benches, and perhaps Division Benches also, to discern consistent principles and apply them uniformly. Without being exhaustive, the following are the broad features of such writ petitions.

(2.) In the present case, a sum of Rs. 31,818.60p. has been recovered from the petitioner's entitlement to gratuity on account of excess salary drawn by the petitioner while he was in service, who was a Class IV employee under the Bihar State Electricity Board, and superannuated on 30.4.2001. In his detailed submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has, inter alia, submitted that the same cannot be adjusted from the amount of gratuity. Relying on the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court reported in 2004(4) PLJR 173 (Surya Nath Mishra v. The Chairman, Bihar State Electricity Board and Ors.), he submits that the same cannot be recovered after such a long lapse of time, particularly after this retirement. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Board has, in his equally elaborate submissions, inter alia, submitted that the provisions of the Gratuity Act, are not attracted in the present case and, therefore, the excess payment can be recovered from the amount of gratuity. He submits in the alternative that it can be adjusted from the account of contributory provident fund. He relies on a Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in 2004 (3) PLJR page-3 (Bihar State Electricity Board v. Man Bahadur), and some unreported judgments.

(3.) On a close perusal of the judgment in Surya Nath Mishra (supra), I find that the learned Single Judge has held that the judgment of the Division Bench in Bihar State Electricity Board v. Man Bahadur), (supra) is Per Incuriam is not a settler on the questions in hand because the earlier Division Bench judgments of this Court reported in 2002 (3) PLJR 67, (Bihar State Electricity Board v. Jagdeo Singh), and 2001 (2) PLJR 58 (Bihar State Electricity Board and Ors. v. Madan Mohan Prasad and Ors.) were not brought to the notice of the Division Bench. The learned Single Judge has proceeded to observe in paragraph 17 of his judgment that the case before the Hon'ble Judge was covered by the judgments of the Supreme Court reported in (2000) 10 Supreme Court cases 99 (Bihar State Electricity Board and Anr. v. Bijay Bahadur and Anr.) as well as 1995 Supp. (1) SCC 18, (Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana and Ors.). He has also quoted the following observations of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bihar State Electricity Board v. Jagdeo Singh, 2002 (3) PLJR 67) ;