IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3877 of 2006 RADHA DEVI D/o- Late Ram bachan Singh R/o- Idgah Mohalla P.O. Dehari-on-Sone P.S. Dehari-on-Sone District-Rohtas Retired A.N.M. P.M.C. Dehari-on- Sone district-Rohtas Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Commissioner and Secretary to Government Health Medical Education and F.W. Department, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Director in Chief Health Services Bihar, Patna. 4. The District Magistrate Rohtas at Sasaram, District-Rohtas. 5. The Civil Surgeon cum C.M.O at Sasaram, district- Rohtas. 6. The Accountant General Bihar, Patna. 7. The Treasury Officers Rohtas at P.O. Sasaram District- Rohtas 8. The Medical Officer I/c of Primary Health Centre at P.O.Dehari-on-sone, District-Rohtas ----------- 3 10.05.2010 Heard Mr. Nageshwar Prasad Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Deepak Kumar, learned A.C. to G.P.16 for the State and learned counsel for the Accountant General. The only issue which requires consideration is whether the petitioner despite having passed Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination in 2003 can be subjected to recovery of the increments earned prior to the said date as also for stoppage of the increments. Brief facts necessary for disposal of the matter is that the petitioner was initially appointed as a trained Dai on which post she 2 joined on 23.1.1968. The petitioner was promoted as Ancillary Nurse Midwife by the Health Department and she joined on the said post on 5.10.1974. The petitioner passed the Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination in 2003 and superannuated from service with effect from 28.2.2005. Unfortunately, the respondents by misreading the provisions of the Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination Rules 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘rules’), held the increments earned by the petitioner until 1998 as illegal by reason of not passing the Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination and did not provide the same even after the passing of the said examination by the petitioner in the year 2003. The petitioner represented before the authorities. In fact after superannuation and during the processing of the pension and gratuity claim of the petitioner the Accountant General, Bihar, Patna came to a conclusion that the petitioner had drawn her increments without passing her Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination and thus directed for recovery of the excess amount from the petitioner vide letter dated 28.7.2005 placed at Annexure-4 to the writ petition. A sum of Rs. 2,60,535/- was 3 calculated as excess amount drawn by the petitioner by reason of the grant of the increments, by the Chief Medical Officer. The calculation chart has been enclosed as Annexure-5 to the proceedings. The said exercise had been carried out by the authorities even while there was a clear direction by the Additional Commissioner-cum - Secretary to the Government of Bihar in the Medical, Education and Family Welfare Department dated 15.10.1990 (Annexure-8) mentioning therein that except the accounts and correspondence clerk the others were not required to pass the Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination. The petitioner represented before the Civil Surgeon cum-Chief Medical Officer for release of the increments mentioning there in that she had already passed the Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination in 2003 and which was received in the office of the Civil Surgeon- cum-Chief Medical Officer on 26.10.2004 (Annexure-10). The said fact has also been confirmed by the Civil Surgeon cum-Chief Medical Officer in the letter dated 3.12.2004 addressed to the incharge-Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Dehri (Annexure-11). 4 The petitioner never received any increments for the period 1998 until her superannuation leading to the filing of the writ petition in question. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the first place the A.N.M. were never required to pass Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination as they were not required to enter into any written correspondence. He with reference to the relevant rules on the issue submitted that despite clear position, the respondents had committed a serious illegality in not granting increments to the petitioner since 1998 until her superannuation on 28.2.2005. He further submits that even if it is assumed that the A.N.M. were required to pass the said examination, the petitioner having passed the said examination in 2003, there was no occasion nor jurisdiction vested in the respondents to withhold the increments. He however, admits that no recovery has been affected pursuant to the directions of the Accountant General as well as the calculation made by the respondents. Learned counsel for the State supporting the impugned order merely submits that as the provisions of the Hindi Noting and 5 Drafting Examination Rules 1968 requires all employees to pass the examination except Class- IV employees hence the petitioner was required to pass the examination failing which she was not entitled to the increments. He submits that as admittedly until 2003 the petitioner had not passed the said examination hence the stoppage of the increments was fully in accordance with law as also the process for recovery had lawful support. The issue of effect of passing the Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination and the consequences arising therefrom have been elaborately discussed in a Bench decision of this Court rendered in the case of Asha Devi reported in 2010 (1) PLJR 901. It was held that the passing of the examination was a one time exercise and was not in the nature of the promotional examination. It was further held that the moment the employee concerned passes the said examination he/she becomes entitled to all the increments whether received by him until that date or not. Following the judicial pronouncement aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed with all consequential reliefs. The petitioner 6 would not only be entitled to the increments for the period 1998 until her superannuation on 28.2.2005 but in case any recovery has been effected in the meanwhile by the respondents acting on the orders of the Accountant General, the petitioner would be entitled for refund of the same. The amounts aforesaid should be paid to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Bibhash ( Jyoti Saran, J.)