The central legal point established in the judgment is that the recovery of excess payments and the refixing of pensionary benefits are justified based on the legal principles related to pay protection and exceptions to the general proposition of law regarding the recovery of money benefits.

1. This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the Patna High Court has been preferred against the order dated 18-2-2000, passed by a learned Single Judge in CWJC No. 3693 of 1998 (Madan Mohan Prasad V/s. Bihar State Electricity Board and Ors.), whereby the order bearing memo No. 352, dated 12-3-1998 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition), has been set aside. By this order, the appellant-Board sought to recover a sum of Rs. 40, 183.60p. from respondent No. 1 (the writ petitioner) on account of excess pay drawn by him due to wrong fixation of pay while he was in service.

2. Respondent No. 1 had initially joined the appellants service as a Bill Clerk, was promoted to the higher post of Assistant Accountant, and finally retired as Accountant with effect from 31-7-1997 after reaching the age of sixty years.

Respondent No. 1 had submitted representation dated 31-1-1984 (Annexure-2) to the appellant stating therein that one Jagdish Prasad, Upper Division Assistant Accountant, was junior to him but drawing higher salary. It was, therefore, requested to grant pay protection to respondent No. 1. The Board examined the matter and afforded pay protection to respondent No. 1, vide order bearing memo No. 126, dated 14-5-1984 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition). The order incorporated the following condition while affording pay protection to respondent No. 1:

3. By letter bearing memo No. 3756, dated 4-11-1995 (Annexure-6 herein), the Board had withdrawn the pay protection afforded to the aforesaid Jagdish Prasad, and by the consequential office order No. 13, dated 3-2-1996 (Annexure-7 herein), the excess pay drawn by him was recovered from him. It is stated in the second supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the Board that Jagdish Prasad superannuated from the services of the Board in August 1995, and the amount has already been recovered from him.

4. Respondent No. 1 herein, in the meanwhile, superannuated with effect from 31-7-1997. It appears from the internal communication dated 10-9-1997 of the Board (Annexure-4 herein) that in view of the aforesaid steps leading to recovery of the excess payment made to Jagdish Prasad, it was felt that the pay protection afforded to respondent No. 1 should also be reopened on the same lines as Jagdish Prasad. The matter was examined in detail which led to the order dated 17-10-1997 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition and impugned therein), whereby"... a sum of Rs. 40 183.60p. on a/c of excess pay drawn due to wrong fixation of pay is recovered from total sanctioned amount of D.C.R. Gratuity payable to Sri Madan Mohan Prasad Retd. Acctt...". The amount has since been deducted and recovered from D.C.R. Gratuity payable to respondent No. 1

5. Respondent No. 1 challenged the said order dated 12-3-1998 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) by preferring CWJC No. 3693 of 1998, which has been allowed by a learned Single Judge of this Court, and the same has been quashed on the ground that the petitioner had not received higher pay by misrepresenting the facts before the authority concerned. It has further been held that refixation of the pensionary benefits on the basis of the pay admissible to the employee concerned cannot be faulted.

6. Aggrieved by the first part of the order whereby the order dated 12-3-1998 has been set aside the Board has preferred the present appeal. Learned Counsel for the Board submits that there are two broad exceptions to the general proposition of law that the money benefit given to an employee should not normally be recovered after long lapse of time, particularly after his superannuation. The present case. It is submitted, is covered by one of the exceptions.

7. Learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 has countered the submission.

8. Having considered the rival submissions, we are of the view that this appeal is fit to be allowed. Law is well settled that money benefit paid to an employee in excess of his entitlement should not normally be recovered from him after a long