IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5061 of 2005 RAJGRIHI SINGH son of Late Rupa Singh, resident of village- Mahror, Police Station- Natwar, District Rohtas at present Ward No.1 V.I.P. Colony (Near Canal), Bhabua, P.S. Bhabua, District- Kaimur ….. Petitioner Versus 1. THE BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD through it’s Chairman, Bidyut Bhawan, Income Tax Golember, Bailey Road, Patna. 2. The General Manager cum Chief Engineer, Magadh Electric Supply Area, Gaya 3. The Electrical Superintending Engineer, Sasaram, Rohta 4. The Electrical Executive Engineer, Electric Supply Division, Bhabhua, Distt. Kaimur 5. The Assistant Electrical Engineer, Electric Supply Sub-Division, Bhabua, District- Kaimur 6. The Deputy Director of Accountants (H.Q.) Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna 7. The Deputy Director of Accounts, Magadh Area, Gaya ….. Respondents ----------- 03 09.02.2009 After filing of the counter affidavit and stand taken by the respondents in paragraph-7 submission of learned counsel representing the petitioner is that the petitioner had shouldered the responsibility on a higher capacity, which could not be denied because he was allowed to draw 20 % allowance of his basic pay for the period, he had worked as a Correspondence Clerk. He is entitled to increment for the period and was rightly given to him by the respondents, as would be evident from perusal of Annexure-5 in this regard. It is not open to the respondents now to order deduction from the retiral dues of the petitioner, the increment granted to him way back in the year 1980. Learned counsel for the petitioner also draws the attention of the Court to Rule 85 (C) of the Bihar Service Code which has been - 2 - relied on to enforce the above arguments. Except stating that the increment was wrongly given to the petitioner because he was only provisionally appointed to work as Sectional Clerk may not be enough for the respondents now to recover the benefit of the said increment after the retirement of the petitioner specially, when the petitioner had no contribution in getting those increments fixed. In view of the settled position of law in the resent Full Bench decision rendered by the High Court in the case of Ram Binod Singh Versus The Bihar State Electricity Board, 2007 (3) PLJR 398, the order of recovery passed in Annexure-7 dated 20.12.2004 is hereby quashed. Writ application is allowed. The respondents are directed to settle the final pension and all other dues of the petitioner at the earliest within a period of four months from the date of communication of production of the copy of this order. P.K. (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)