IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No. 1180 of 2005 YAMUNA PRASAD SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the Petitioner: Mr. Shashi Shekhar Tiwary, Adv. For the State: Mr. S. Alamdar Hussain, SC-6 ***** 04. 14.03.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. No one appears for the State. However, Counter Affidavit has been filed on behalf of Respondent Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5. Prayer of the petitioner in this Writ Application is for a direction to Respondents to withdraw the order, contained in letter No. 397, dated 15.07.1999 as well as letter No. 411, dated 27.07.1999, issued under the signature of Joint Director, Agriculture, Magadh Range, Gaya, whereby the petitioner was asked to show-cause as to why he has received increment and enhancement in the salary without passing Departmental Hindi Examination. By Annexure-1/A, petitioner has been directed to deposit the amount, which he has received on account of increment and enhancement of his salary in the District Treasury, since this amount has been received by him without passing Departmental Hindi Examination. Further prayer of the petitioner is for quashing of a noting, made in his LPC, contained in 2 Memo No. 200, dated 28.09.2000, whereby a direction has been issued for recovery of Rs. 82,621/- from the petitioner and to deposit it in the District Treasury. During the pendency of this Writ Application, the amount of Rs. 82,621/- has been recovered from the General Provident Fund Account, payable to the petitioner, as such additional prayer made by the petitioner is for a direction to the Respondents for refunding the amount, already recovered from his GPF. Petitioner’s case is that he was appointed as Field Man on 18.11.1974, which is a non-gazetted post in the cadre of Subordinate Agriculture Service. With the passage of time, he worked on the post of Junior Research Assistant during 1975-76 and 1976- 77 under the District Agriculture Officer, Gaya. He worked as Agriculture Inspector under Sub-divisional Agriculture Officer, Aurangabad during 1977-78 to 1982-83. From 1982-83 and 1984-87, he worked as In-charge Block Agriculture Officer at Bidupur, Vaishali. Finally, the petitioner was transferred to the Office of Joint Director, Agriculture and he was scheduled to superannuate on 31.01.2004 from the post of Agriculture Inspector (P.A.). Prior to his 3 superannuation, a Departmental Proceeding was initiated against him on the charge of dereliction of duty and the petitioner was put under suspension. Before his superannuation, the suspension order was revoked, but finally, he was awarded punishment of dismissal from service. The grievance of the petitioner is that in the year 1989, when he was working at Sherghati, vide Annexure-1, dated 15.07.1999, he was asked to submit his explanation as to why he has received increment and consequential enhancement of salary without passing the Departmental Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination. In response to this, petitioner submitted his show-cause, but was not considered and, finally, vide Annexure-1/A, dated 27.07.1999, he was asked to deposit the excess amount, paid as enhanced salary to him. Petitioner’s case is that since the post held by him belonged to Subordinate Agriculture Service Cadre, as such under the Rules, he was not required to pass Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination. As per the rule, this Examination was for the gazetted Officers. The members of the Subordinate Agriculture Service, like petitioner, who are posted as Agricultural Inspectors, Farm Inspectors 4 and Horticultural Inspectors were required to pass Practical Examination in Agriculture, in order to test their efficiency and knowledge in practical agriculture. This examination, petitioner had already passed and in support of this contention, Annexure-7 has been annexed. Annexure-7, indicates that petitioner has passed practical examination in Agriculture Examination and also Accounts for Subordinate Agriculture Service. Since, the petitioner held a non- gazeted post, he was not required to pass the higher Accounts Examination with book and without book and Hindi Examination, but he passed these Examinations as well. In support of this statement, Annexure-9 series have been annexed. Passing of these Examinations under the Rule is mandatory for gazetted level officers in the Agriculture Department. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that it was for petitioner’s surprise, when an explanation was called from him by Annexure-1 and a direction was issued for depositing excess amount vide Annexure- 1/A. Counsel for the petitioner contends that Annexure-1 and 1/A might have been issued under the wrong impression that petitioner is receiving his salary in a higher pay-scale of Rs. 2200-75-2800-100- 5 4000, in stead of the pay-scale of Rs. 2000-60-2300- 100-3800, which is for the subordinate employees. The reason may be that in the pay-scale of 2000- 3800, there is a slab of Rs. 2300/-, which at the relevant time the petitioner was getting and mentioned in his pay-scale. This fact has been mentioned in the show-cause filed by the petitioner in response to Annexure-1 and 1/A. Counsel for the petitioner submits that without considering his show-cause the amount of Rs. 82,621/- has been recovered from his General Provident Fund. The reason for such recovery has not been disclosed by the petitioner in his Writ Application. In the Counter Affidavit filed on behalf of Respondent State also it has not been clarified Petitioner has already passed Hindi Examination as well as Higher Accounts with Book and without Book. On this ground also, there was no need for making recovery from his GPF. Only reason for recovery, as disclosed in Annexure-1, 1/A and Annexure-3, is that , petitioner has been allowed one increment without passing Hindi Examination, though essential for allowing such an increment and for enhancement in salary. 6 Considering Annexure- 7 and 9 series, it is evident that the petitioner has been declared passed in all these Examinations. This statement has not been denied in the Counter Affidavit as such the reason behind such recovery becomes non-existent. I do not find that the recovery from the GPF of the petitioner had been made by the Respondents for any legal or valid reasons. Accordingly, the Respondents are directed to refund Rs. 82,621/-, recovered from the GPF of the petitioner. So far the Noting in the LPC of the petitioner (Annexure-3) is concerned, that will become redundant, if the amount already recovered from the GPF of the petitioner is refunded to him. The recovered amount must be refunded to the petitioner within 8 weeks from the date of production / communication of this Order. The petitioner will also be entitled for statutory interest on this amount, as recovery has been made from his General Provident Fund. Accordingly, this Writ Application is allowed. SKM (Mridula Mishra, J.)