ORDER
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.
1. The husband of petitioner late Gurusharan Stasangi was head clerk in the Sikidary Hydel Project, Ranchi under the Bihar State Electricity Board. He died in harness on 22nd December, 1996. The respondent, thereafter, when sanctioned the amount of gratuity to the tune of Rs. One lac in favour of petitioner, ordered to recover certain amount and to pay only a sum of Rs. 61,383.40 paise to the petitioner.
2. The petitioner being dissatisfied, had to move before this Court in W.P. (S) No. 24 of 2001, against the order dated 20th December, 1999. The consequential pay fixation as was made vide Memo No. 164, dated 30th March, 1999 was also challenged. This Court vide Order dated 12th March, 2001, while did no decide the case on merit, asked the petitioner to represent the competent authority, who was asked to decide the matter.
3. Thereafter, inspite of representation, no decision having been taken by the respondents, this writ petition was preferred.
4. The respondents were allowed time twice on 20th December, 2002 and 23rd January, 2003 but till date, no counter affidavit has been filed.
5. From the impugned order contained in Memo No. 1948, dated 20th December, 1999, it appears that pa y to late Gurusharan Satsangi was wrongly fixed, which could come to the notice of the authorities much after the death of the employee at the time of payment of gratuity to the widow. In this background, the pay of the deceased employee was re-fixed vide Memo No. 164, dated 30th March, 1999; last pay drawn by him was brought down and vide Memo No. 1948, dated 20th December, 1999, it was ordered to recover the excess amount of Rs. 34,737.60 paise as was paid,
6. If further appears that the Gurusharan Satsangi had taken certain advance, such as cycle advance, medical advance and marriage advance. Such outstanding dues of Rs. 1,000 + Rs. 251/- + 1188/- + Rs. 1,500/- have been order to be recovered.
7. There is nothing on the record to suggest that the pay to late Gurusharan Satsangi was wrongly fixed on his- representation. In this background, the respondents cannot recover any amount from the gratuity of the widow on account of excess payment. In this respect, one may refer the decision of the Supreme Court in Sahib Ram’s case 1995 Suppl. (1) SCC 18. However, it is open to the authorities to adjust the outstanding dues taken as temporary advance, such as cycle advance, medical advance and marriage advance as referred in letter No. 1948, dated 20th December. 1999.
8. For the reasons aforesaid, the subsequent pay fixation made after the death of the employee vide Memo No. 164, dated 30th March, 1999 and the order of recovery to the extent of Rs. 34,737.60 paise on account of excess payment as made vide Memo No. 1948, dated 20th December, 1999 are set aside. The respondents are directed to pay back the petitioner the amount of Rs. 34,737.60 paise which they have adjusted out of the gratuity within a period of one month from the date receipt/ production of a copy of this order.
9. The competent authorities of B.S.E.B. are also directed to recalculate the family pension, gratuity and leave encashment as per last salary drawn by late Gurusharan Satsangi without taking into account the order of pay fixation dated 30th March, 1999 and if further amount is found payable be paid in favour of petitioner within a period of three months.
10. The writ petition stands disposed of, with the aforesaid observations/directions.