IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7292 of 2008 Reena Sinha, Wife of Sri Ashok Kumar, resident of Mohalla Postal Park, Munsi Bhagat Path, P.S. Kankarbagh, District Patna…............................Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. The Additional Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Health Services, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Director-in-Chief, Health Services, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Superintendent, Nalanda Medical College & Hospital, Patna. 5. The Chief Controller of Accounts, Finance (Audit) Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna………………………………………………………………….Respondents ----------- For Petitioner: Mr. Subodh Kumar, Advocate For the State: Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, A.C. to G.P.3 4 20.07.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State. Admittedly, petitioner was appointed as House Keeper in Nalanda Medical College & Hospital, Patna and is still working as such. She is aggrieved by the order dated 04.04.2008 passed by the Superintendent of the Hospital, as contained in Annexure-7, by which, on account of non-passing of the Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination, excess amount paid to her towards her salary by way of increment etc. has been ordered to be recovered in view of the objection of the Auditor. Learned counsel for the petitioner 2 submits that by the order of the Health Department dated 15.11.1990, except for the Accountant and Correspondence Clerk of class III, passing of Hindi Noting & Drafting Examination was made optional for other employees and hence, she did not appear in the Examination. Learned counsel also submits that when the Department issued letter dated 05.05.2005, as contained in Annexure-4, by which for certain category of employees of the Department, exemption was withdrawn, she appeared in the Examination and passed the same in 2005 itself, as is evident from Annexure-3 dated 16.12.2005. He submits that petitioner had in fact appeared in the examination on 13.03.2005 itself that is prior to issuance of Annexure-4. He also submits that among the category of employees as mentioned in Annexure-4 in respect of whom exemption was withdrawn, the post of House Keeper is not mentioned. Hence, he submits that the order of the Department, as contained in Annexure-4, was not applicable to the petitioner. He submits that in any case petitioner had appeared in the examination much prior to 3 issue of that letter. Though counter affidavit has been filed in this case, the same does not meet the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. In the circumstances, this Court finds that the respondent-Superintendent ought to have taken into consideration the absence of mention of House Keeper from Annexure-4 and the fact that petitioner had already appeared in the Examination prior to issue of the said letter before passing the impugned order. In view of the same, respondent was not legally justified in issuing the impugned office order directing deduction of excess amount paid to the petitioner. In the circumstances, this Court finds that the impugned order passed by the Superintendent of Hospital dated 04.04.2008 as contained in Annexure-7 is illegal. The same is, therefore, quashed. The writ application is, accordingly, allowed. BT (J. N. Singh, J.)