D.G.R.PATNAIK, J. - (1.) BY Court Heard Sri D.K.Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. I.Sen Choudhary for the respondent J.S.E.B.
(2.) THE petitioner in this writ application has prayed for quashing the order dated 26.11.2004 (Annexure -6) issued by the Secretary, Jharkhand State Electricity Board whereby the petitioner's claim for refund of a sum of Rs. 1,06,592/ -, which has been recovered from the petitioner's gratuity amount, has been rejected and his further claim for fixing his pension on the basis of the last pay drawn, which is at Rs. 10,120/ -, has also been rejected. The petitioner's contention is that he had retired from service under the respondents on 31.01.2002 in the post of Office Superintendent. Thereafter, he was paid his retiral dues but by virtue of the impugned order, a sum of Rs. 1,06,592/ - has been deducted from his gratuity amount on the plea that the petitioner has drawn excess payment by way of increments from a date when he was not entitled for such payment.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of recovery has been passed illegally, arbitrarily and without issuing any prior notice to the petitioner and without affording him any opportunity of being heard. Referring to the Full Bench Judgement in the case of State of Jharkhand & Ors. V/s. Padmalochan Kalindi, 2008(1) J.C.R. Jhr (FB) 5, learned counsel submits that this issue has been settled in the case of Padmalochan Kalindi (Supra) whereby this Court has declared that any order of recovery of any amount from the retiral benefits of the retired employee without resorting to the procedure laid down under Rule 43(b) of the Pension Rules, is illegal. The petitioner, according to the learned counsel, is entitled to refund of the deducted amount. Learned counsel adds that the purported excess payment, even if made to the petitioner, it was not on account of any fault or lapse or misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner and this being so, neither can the recovery of any excess paid amount be made after four years of the retirement of the petitioner and neither can the respondents deny the petitioner the benefit of the last pay drawn by him for the purpose of fixing his pension.;