IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.507 of 2011 In C.W.J.C. No. 2295 of 2010 With I.A. No. 2238 of 2011 And I.A. No. 2239 of 2011 ==================================================== 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Deputy Secretary, Department of Water Resources (Irrigation), Bihar, Patna. 3. The Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Darbhanga. 4. The Superintending Engineer, Western Kosi Canal Circle, Jhanjharpur, District-Madhubani. 5. The Executive Engineer, Western Kosi Canal Division, Khutauna, District-Madhubani. ……Appellants Versus Surya Narayan Singh, S/o Late Pritam Singh, posted as Correspondence Clerk, now reverted to the post of Survey Khalasi in the office of the Executive Engineer, Western Kosi Canal Division Khutauna, Western Kosi Canal Circle, Division Madhubani. At present resident of village-Ekhari, P.S.-Ladania, District-Madhubani. ……..Respondent ==================================================== APPEARANCE : For the Appellants : Mr. V.M.K.Sinha, AAG 13 Mr.D. Choudhary, AC to AAG 13 ==================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE And HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 2. 23.03.2011 Re. Interlocutory Application No. 2238 of 2011: This application under section 5 of the Limitation Act is filed by the appellants for condonation of delay of 180 days occurred in filing the Letters Patent Appeal. On the facts and in the circumstances of the 2 case, the delay is condoned. Interlocutory application stands disposed of. Re. Letters Patent Appeal No. 507 of 2011: This Appeal preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent arises from the judgment and order dated 17th August 2010 passed by the learned single Judge in the above C.W.J.C. No. 2295 of 2010. The matter at dispute is the recovery of difference of salary from the salary paid to the respondent, a Correspondence Clerk in the office of the Executive Engineer, Western Kosi Canal Division, District- Madhepura from the date he was ordered to be reverted to Class-IV service till the date of his actual reversion in the year 2009. The respondent- writ petitioner a Work Charged employee in the State service was, contrary to the prevailing instructions, promoted to Class-III service. On noticing this irregularity, the State Government ordered reversion of the writ petitioner to Class IV service and many other such employees. Against the order of reversion the writ petitioner filed C.W.J.C. No. 1121 of 2001 under Article 226 of the Constitution. The said matter was decided by the Full Bench of this Court. On 28th September 2007 the Full Bench was pleased to dismiss the writ petition without any consequential order. Pending the writ petition by an interim order dated 24th January 2001 the operation of the order of reversion was stayed by the learned single Judge. The learned single Judge observed that “in case this writ 3 petition fails, it will be open to the respondent authorities to take steps for recovery of the amount paid to the petitioner by virtue of the stay order passed today by this Court.” In view of the said directions, the State Government reverted the petitioner under its order dated 30th October 2009 and directed recovery of the difference of salary from the date of the order of reversion in the year 2000 till the date of actual reversion in the year 2009. The said order came to be challenged in the above C.W.J.C. No. 2295 of 2010. In view of the Government Circulars dated 1st July 1998 and 11th August 1998, the learned single Judge has set aside the order of recovery. Therefore, the present Appeal. Learned Additional Advocate General Mr. V.M.K.Sinha has appeared for the appellants. He does not dispute the above referred Circulars dated 1st July 1998 and 11th August 1998. Under the said Circulars, the State Government had decided to forgo the recovery of the amount of difference in salary on account of reversion of the Class III servants to Class IV service, such as the writ petitioner. He has further submitted that in view of the interim order made on 24th January 2001 by the learned single Judge, the State Government has right to recover the amount of difference in salary from the date of the order of reversion till the date of the actual reversion. We see no merit in this contention. Though by the interim order the learned single Judge had reserved the 4 liberty to recover the amount of difference in salary, no order of like nature was made by the Full Bench while dismissing the writ petition. In absence of the specific liberty reserved by the Full Bench, the aforesaid Government Circulars would apply in case of the writ petitioner. The learned single Judge has rightly set aside the order of recovery of the amount of difference in salary made against the writ petitioner. No case for interference is made out. The Appeal is dismissed in limine. Interlocutory applications stand disposed of. Sujit (R.M. Doshit, CJ.) (Jyoti Saran, J.)