IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2295 of 2010 1. SURYA NARAYAN SINGH S/O LATE PRITAM SINGH POSTED AS CORRESPONDENCE CLERK, NOW REVERTED TO THE POST OF SURVEY KHALASI IN THE OFFICE OF EXECUTIVE ENGINEER WESTERN KOSHI CANAL DIVISION, KHUTAUNA, WESTERN KOSHI CANAL CIRCLE, DISTT.- MADHUBANI Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, DEPTT. OF WATER RESOURCES (IRRIGATION), BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, WATER RERSOURCES DEPTT., DARBHANGA 4. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, WESTERN KOSHI CANAL CIRCLE, JHANJHARPUR, DISTT.- MADHUBANI 5. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, WESTERN KOSHI CANAL DIVISION, KHUTAUNA, DISTT.- MADHUBANI ----------- 2. 17.8.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner was appointed as a Survey Khalasi in the work charged establishment. Pursuant to a decision dated 19.2.1981, he was appointed on the post of Correspondence Clerk. This came to be terminated after 19 years when he was reverted to the Class-IV post. He questioned the same in C.W.J.C. No. 1121 of 2001. This Court stayed the operation of the order subject to the condition that it shall be open for the respondent authorities to take steps for recovery of amount paid to the petitioner if the writ petition fails. In view of the Full Bench decision of the Court in C.W.J.C. No. 4177 of 1995 and analogous cases disposed on 2 28.09.2007, C.W.J.C. No. 1121 of 2001 also came to be dismissed. The petitioner stood relegated to the Class-IV post. In pursuance thereof the respondents have issued the impugned order dated 30.10.2009 directing recovery. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon Annexures 2 and 3 dated 1.7.1998 and 11.8.1998 directing that in such cases of reversion, no recovery should be made. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. Dealing with Paragraph-15 of the writ application, with regard to Annexures 2 and 3, the respondents in Paragraph-17 of their counter affidavit have not denied the correctness of the aforesaid orders dated 1.7.1998 and 11.8.1998. Counsel for the State submits that the recovery is in terms of the interim order dated 24.1.2001 of this Court. It appears that at the time the interim order was being passed, the aforesaid administrative instruction of the State Government had not been brought to the attention of the Court. Alternatively, if the respondents have voluntarily issued certain directions in the form of an administrative circular it 3 shall continue to bind them and they cannot avoid their responsibility so long as the circular stands to take shelter behind the Court order to urge that whatever may be the administrative instruction they are required to act under the orders of the Court. If this Court had given any such direction after noticing the aforesaid administrative circulars, the matter may have been entirely different. The Court, therefore, finds it difficult to sustain the impugned order dated 30.10.2009 in view of the administrative circulars issued by the respondents dated 1.7.1998 and 11.8.1998. The impugned order dated 30.10.2009 is therefore quashed in so far as it directs recovery of any money from the petitioner. The writ application stand allowed to that extent. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)