The court emphasized the importance of adherence to relevant standing orders and previous court decisions in determining the validity of recovery of excess payments.

1. In this writ petition the petitioner is aggrieved by recovery of the alleged excess amount drawn by him, vide Annexure A/2, on account of erroneous fixation of pay on his promotion and has sought for direction to fix his pension on last pay drawn, in view of Boards Standing Order No. 125 dated 7.5.1983.

2. Learned counsel for the Board, on the other hand, submitted that the petitioner cannot avail the benefit of his promotion granted in the year 1977 under Standing Order No. 125. In fact at the relevant time the case of the petitioner will be governed by Standing Order No. 515 dated 7.5.1976 (Annexure 2) which provided that "where promotional avenues are available, double benefit in fixation of pay shall not be allowed". It further provided that "deduction from the salary of those workmen who have already been benefited twice in the matter of pay fixation, i.e. once in the selection grade and in promotion shall be waived immediately, in 12 equal instalments or at the rate of Rs. 60/- per month which ever will effect the recovery earlier."

3. This Court finds substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the Board. At the time of grant of benefit in the year 1977 Boards Standing Order No. 125 was not even in existence. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to show that the said standing order has been given effect to from the retrospective date. On the contrary Mr. Datta, learned counsel appearing for the Board, has referred to clarification bearing No. 524/EB dated 2.8.1985, contained in Annexure A/2, whereby it was clarified that the Boards Standing Order No. 125 dated 7.5.1983 has effect from the date of its issue, i.e. 7.5.1983 and there is nothing ambiguous in it. Further, request was made to see that fixation of pay made in pursuance of Boards Standing Order No. 125 dated 7.5.1983, if any, is contrary to the clarification and the same should be reviewed/revised suitably under intimation to the Board.

4. Accordingly, this Court holds that there is nothing wrong in fixation of pension pursuant to Annexure A/2.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has, however, contended that in any view of the matter recovery of the amount pursuant to Annexure A/2 is not permissible as it is not a case of the Board that the said fixation was done on misrepresentation or fraud committed by the petitioner. Learned ounsel for the petitioner in support of the said contention besides relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sahib Ram V/s. State of Haryana, reported in 1995 Suppl. (1) SCC 18, and in the case of V. Gangaram V/s. Regional Joint Director, reported in 1997 S.C. 2776, has also relied upon the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Bihar State Electricity Board & ors. V/s. Jagdeo Singh & ors., reported in 2002 (3) PLJR 67.

6. Learned counsel for the Board, on the other hand, has submitted that recovery has been upheld by the Division Bench in the case of Bihar State Electricity Board & anor. V/s. Ram Gati Singh & ors. (L.P.A.No. 86/2002) disposed of on 9.7.2002, the validity of which was challenged on Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 17929/2002 and the special leave petition was dismissed by the Apex Court.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, has submitted that on filing of the review application the Apex Court has issued notice to the Board and the matter is still pending consideration by the Apex Court. The order passed by the Division Bench in L.P.A.No. 86/2002 is of later date, i.e. 9.7.2002 whereas the order of the Division Bench relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is of prior date, i.e. 13.5.2002. The later Division Bench has not taken notice of order passed by the earlier Division Bench in the case of B.S.E.B. vs. Jagdeo Singh in which while upholding the order of the learned Single Judge it has been held that "High Court should not come to the rescue of the Board to make deductions and let the official who was a ready part