IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7392 of 2006 ASHOK KUMAR SINHA S/O LATE Dr. Chandrika PRASAD R/O VILLAGE- BEHAT, TOLA PATHRAHI PS. JHANJHARPUR RAILWAY STATION, PO- JHANJHARPUR R.S. DISTT- MADHUBANI--- ------------------PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER-CUM- SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, KATIHAR,PATNA 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT,DEHRI, ROHTAS. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, SONE CANAL, CIRCLE ARA. 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, SONE CANAL DIVISION, ARA 5. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, WESTERN COSI CANAL DIVISION, ANDHRA THARHI, MADHUBANI. 6. THE DISTRICT ACCOUNTS OFFICER, BHOJPUR, ARA 7. THE DISTRICT PROVIDENT FUND OFFICER, BHOJPUR AT ARA 8. SUB-TREASURY OFFICER, JHANJHARPUR 9. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, BIHAR, PATNA--- RESPONDENTS ----------- 2 13.1.2009 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Vide order dated 27.12.2002 contained in annexure-3 five increments granted to the petitioner earlier was ordered to be withdrawn and further to be deducted from his salary in 20 instalments. Further vide order contained in annexure-5 dated 18.8.2003 petitioner’s salary was refixed which had the effect of reducing the pay received by the petitioner earlier. The reason for two impugned orders being passed against the petitioner is that he despite being an Accounts Clerk working under the respondent authorities for many a years had failed to pass the departmental examination. Based on a letter no. 7312 dated 12.9.2002 contained in annexure-3 the consequence of deduction of increments for non- passing of the examination befell the petitioner in the present writ application. The petitioner challenges the said orders. The contention of learned counsel for the - 2 - petitioner is that by virtue of the Circular dated 21.6.1978 further clarified vide Office Order No. 1169 (Ka) dated 9.11.1983 the petitioner was entitled to an exemption from passing of the department examination because he had already crossed more than 50 years of age and that despite his best efforts he had failed to pass the examination earlier held in this regard. Petitioner by virtue of annexure-4 had also requested for exemption but the same has not been considered by the respondent authority. From perusal of annexure-4 dated 23.7.2003, no doubt, the petitioner has demanded exemption from passing of the departmental examination but such claim has been made by him after a decision had already been taken to withdraw five increments which had already been granted to him. But even if it was a little belated application on behalf of the petitioner the respondent authorities ought to have considered his prayer, more so when he was to superannuate on 31.8.2004. This writ application is disposed of with a direction upon the respondents that they shall consider the request of the petitioner for exemption from passing of the departmental examination in accordance with the liberalize scheme which the Department of Personnel had laid down in this regard and only depending on the outcome of the decision on the prayer of exemption made by the petitioner the final deduction and other fixation will be worked out. It is hoped and expected that since the petitioner has already superannuated an early decision preferably - 3 - within a period of four months from the date of communication or production of a copy of this order would be taken by the competent authority and communicated to petitioner. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J.)