IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13197 of 2006 MD.SHABBIR HUSSAIN S/O ZAKIR HUSSAIN RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DILAWARPUR P.S. MONGHYER DISTRICT MONGHYER. ……….. PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN VIDYUT BHAWAN BAILEY ROAD, PATNA. 2. SECRETARY, BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VIDYUT BHAWAN BAILEY ROAD, PATNA. 3. FINANCIAL CONTROLLER, BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD VIDYUT BHAWAN BAILEY ROAD, PATNA. 4. JOINT SECRETARY, BIHAR STATE ELECTRTICITY BOARD, VIDYUT BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD , PATNA. 5. GENERAL MANAGER/ CHIEF ENGINEER, CENTRAL BIHAR AREA ELECTRICITY BOARD PATNA SERPENTINE ROAD, PATNA. 6. DY. DIRECTOR PERSONNEL, CENTRAL BIHAR, AREA ELECTRICITY BOARD PATNA SERPENTINE ROAD, PATNA. -----------RESPONDENTS. 07. 20.09.2010. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board). 2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the office order No. 446 dated 23.09.2006, Annexure-3, whereunder increment allowed to him for the period between 5.2.1982 to 15.5.1994 is being recovered for his failure to pass the Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination in the light of the orders of the Board dated 27.3.1999, Annexure-A to the counter affidavit. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submited that direction to recovery the amount of increment paid - 2 - to the petitioner is contrary to the orders of this court dated 01.03.2002 passed in CWJC No 1264 of 2002, Annexure-4, whereunder another Single Judge of this court relying on the Division Bench judgment of this court held that authorities of the Board were not right in their effort to recovery the amount of increment paid by failure to pass the Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination. 4. Counsel for the Board, however opposed the prayer, notwithstanding the orders of this court dated 01.3.2002, Annexure-4 on the ground that petitioner never questioned the office order dated 27.3.1999, Annexure-A to the counter affidavit, whereunder increment allowed to him for the period between 5.2.1982 to 15.5.1994 was directed to be recovered for his failure to pass the Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination. It is further submitted by the counsel for the Board that in effect by filing the present writ petition on 3.11.2006 petitioner is challenging the order dated 27.3.1999, Annexure-A after about six years and the writ petition should be dismissed on the ground of latches. 5. I regret not to accept the submission of the counsel for the Board for the reason that - 3 - petitioner became aggrieved when order dated 27.3.1999 was implemented and the impugned office order dated 23.09.2006, Annexure-3 was issued directing recovery from the petitioner within two months of the issue of the impugned order dated 23.09.2006, he filed the writ petition. In any case, direction to recovery the increment paid to the petitioner between the period 5.2.1982 to 15.5.1994 is contrary to the orders of the Division Bench of this court, accordingly, I quash the impugned recovery order dated 23.09.2006, Annexure-3. 6. This writ application is accordingly disposed of. Rajesh/ (V.N.Sinha,J.)