1. Both the appeals are barred by limitation.

2. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the averments made in the limitation petitions, we are satisfied that sufficient ground has been made out to condone the delay in filing these appeals, Accordingly, the delay in filing these appeals are condoned.

3. The point involved in both the appeals are the same and as such they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

4. LPA No. 935 of 2003 has been filed by the Bihar State Electricity Board (hereafter referred to as the Board) and its officers against the part of the order dated 27.6.2003 whereby the learned Single Judge while allowing the writ application being CWJC No. 3310 of 2003 filed by the writ petitioner-respondent No. 1 Man Bahadur for payment of retiral dues has also directed the appellant-Board to refund Rs. 14,289/- which has been recovered from the retiral dues of the writ petitioner-respondent No. 1 on account of excess payment due to wrong fixation of pay.

5. LPA No. 955 of 2003 has been filed by the appellant-Board against the part of the order dated 25.6.2003 passed in CWJC No. 3282 of 2003 [reported in 2003(3) PLJR 509] whereby the learned Single Judge while directing the appellant- Board to pay the retiral dues to the writ petitioner-respondent No. 1 Kedar Nath Verma has also directed it for payment of Rs. 26,147/- which was recovered from his retiral dues as excess payment due to wrong fixation of pay.

6. Both the writ petitioners-respondents were the employees of the appellant Board. The writ petitioner-respondent No. 1 of LPA No. 935 of 2003 retired on 29.2.2000 as Head Lineman, (Urban) Division Nalanda at Biharsharif and writ petitioner-respondent No. 1 of LPA No. 955 of 2003 retired on 30.4.1999 as Head Clerk. Nalanda Electric Supply Anchal, Biharsharif.

7. Both the writ petitioners-respondents filed the aforesaid writ applications for direction to pay the retiral dues. The writ petitioner-respondent No. 1 of LPA No. 935 of 2003 stated that some amount has been deducted from the sanctioned D.C.R. gratuity due to excess payment made previously which is not to be recovered after retirement. The writ petitioner-respondent No. 1 of LPA No. 955 of 2003 specifically challenged the recovery made of Rs. 26,147.10 P from the amount of gratuity on account of excess payment as the same is not permissible in law specially after retirement.

8. The appellant-Board filed counter affidavits in both the cases. So far payment of other retiral dues is concerned, as the Board is not aggrieved by the direction issued by the learned Single Judge, the assertion of the Board with regard to same is not being stated for the reason that they are not relevant for disposal of the present case. So far recovery aspect with regard to writ petitioner-respondent No. 1 of LPA No. 935 of 2003 is concerned, it was stated in paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit filed in CWJC No. 3310 of 2003 that a sum of Rs. 14,289/- has been recovered from the amount of gratuity on account of excess payment drawn by the writ petitioner-respondent No. 1 and extract of the excess amount drawn by him is detailed in Annexure-B to the counter affidavit. The order for recovery of excess amount was passed on 16.1.2001. It was clearly mentioned in the Gratuity Payment Order No. 3094 dated 3.5.2001 contained in Annexure-A to the counter affidavit that the aforesaid amount has been recovered from the amount of gratuity. It was further stated that the writ petitioner-respondent No. 1 has not challenged the recovery in the writ application.

9. With regard to writ petitioner - respondent No. 1 of LPA No. 955 of 2003 it was stated in paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit filed in CWJC No. 3282 of 2003 about the details as to how the excess payment has been made and it was further stated that the writ petitioner - respondent No. 1 was informed about the said discrepancies in the pay fixation by le